19 simultaneous tracks
PIII 800
512 MB RAM
7200 rpm ATA66 HDD (data drive is 2nd HDD in system)
MOTU 24i A/D

24 tracks with Vegas Video and RME Hamerfall, 10k rpm
Seagate Cheetah

ha...this is my favorite one. I always test my system out
just so I know what my limits are.

700mhz Athlon
128MB ram
2-Echo Gina cards
7200 Rpm EIDE ATA66 Seagate Barricuda
10K SCSI Seagate Cheetah

With the Cheetah as the record drive: 34 simultaneous tracks
With the Barricuda as the record drive: 44 simultaneous
tracks.

That's right!!! The 7200 Rpm EIDE out performs the 10K
Scsi...both Seagate drives. I wouldn't have believed it
either if both drives weren't on the same system. I'm a
born again IDE user. I think I paid about $200 more for
the SCSI drive too.

One side note...no I don't have this many inputs. I only
have 8 inputs with the 2 gina cards, but this is the
maximum of simultaneous tracks that I "could" record,
before I start to get skips in the audio.

Brian Franz

Hah?

Umm...I have a 10k scsi on a U160 ctrlr and get over 5-8
more stereo 24-bit tracks than all of my ibm 75gxp 7200s
and 1 maxtor diamond max plus 40.
hey man....... I love both scsi and eide an insist on this
hybrid for all my DAWs.

PIII800mhz

sooo...

one of three things is happening with you:

- you have scsi setup problems
- your not using an actual U160 ctrlr
- you're lying

I opt for ... you're lying.

joed

Now guys...be nice.

We have heard many reports of IDE drives working as well
as, if not better than SCSI, for recording purposes.

Well, I guess Seagate is lying about there drive specs then
too? I have no reason to lie...I like SCSI. Why don't you
visit WWW.PROREC.COM and read the article SCSI vs. IDE and
maybe make your own EDUCATED conclusion instead of calling
me a liar. You are correct about something I am not using
a U160 controler, but I also am not using an ATA100
controler either for IDE. I am using a Ultra SCSI 3
controler of max transfer rate of 40MB/sec and a ATA66
EIDE, and also I didn't spend $200 for my SCSI controler,
like you did for your U160.

Here's seagates actual drive specs:

7200 RPM IDE Barricuda Max. Transfer rate: 45.5 MB/Sec
10K RPM SCSI Cheetah Max. Transfer rate: 36.2 MB/Sec

Look for yourself if you don't believe it smart guy. I
didn't believe it either til I did some research and did my
own real tests that confirmed it.

Now why don't you call the guys at Seagate liars
too...seems like 45.5 is a lot faster than 36.2 to me,
maybe you do that "New Math".


P.S. Dave, you knew this dumbass was in for a rude
awakening didn't you :-)

The Liar without a cause,
Brian Franz

Oh...and for a side note, you need to enable DMA on those
IDE drives, it will almost double the performance of the
drive for audio recording purposes. I don't expect a smart
guy like that to know how to do that though, to get better
performance out of his system with those IDE drives. Once
you do that, I'm sure we would all like to hear about your
comparitive study.

Liar w/o a cause,
Brian Franz

While I don't have time to do tests, I will say that I
notice little, if any, difference when _accidentally_
recording to one of our 7200rpm IDE storage drives, than if
I correctly choose the 10,000rpm SCSI U160 intended for
recording.

Which bears out the fact that I try to design and build a
system that will so easily exceed its normal load that a
normal load is never a strain.

IOW, lots of headroom, in both signal path and peak load,
will make you a happier engineer.

KAC ...

I have 34 ins on a Dakota/Montana, and I can record all at
24/48 on a maxtor ATA66.
A song I am doing currently plays 52 tracks so I think I
could record more if I had the inputs.
I could do a test soon as I have 48 i/o in mixtremes but
not all in one machine.

Yes, I will be nice, even to this one-note wonder.

Look, I have both on my system kiddo - I'm not here to
start bashing ide...hell I've backed up the test scenarios
of 1 ide to 1 scsi hd results. I applaud you're
efforts...it's nice to save people $. it really is...and
an Ide drive is just fine for GETTING WORK DONE.
This is a DUH.

I've been to ProRec helping out in discussions, I know the
banter on scsi vs. ide and differences "between hard
drives", I've been working/building DAWs since you learned
the word...blah..blah..blah.

But somehow I knew you didn't have a U160 ctrlr for
your "complete and unbiased" test summations.
** if you did you would notice that you will get a handful
more tracks without dropout over the ide. Not enough to
warrant the extra price mind you...but more none the less.
Does this "matter"... no. I didn't say this, although
you're hoping I did.

BTW: How does "free" sound as for my U160 ctrlr? You
know..as in paying ...$0.00 for it? I received it from a
buddy for payback in upgrading his system.
Get one and follow-up on this topic.

As for why a hybrid scsi/idesetup is better than sole ide?

Do a little test for me kiddo...
Put your os/apps on a "scsi drive", then (using the U160
ctrlr) put that u160hd as your record to drive (i wouldn't
advise that Seagate U160 hd btw...but the plan will still
be effective for you).

Keep the ide's and use them for "playback/storage" only...
Use your tracker as you would.
Tell me this scenario doesn't provide a more snappier DAW
than 4 ides. Please. Please...just try and weasle that I'm
wrong (you got the hardware...well..almost).

You'll also notice that you can record more tracks without
dropout more so than with the sole 3-4 ide setup.

Throw some video editing in the ball game. A/B your setup
to the hybrid. Try and tell me the sole ide is snappier.
btw: Do you know what happens to access times on an ide
when it reaches over 3/4 full? You will ;).

Oh...and if you follow the above..you'll also have your
plug-ins on that scsi drive....
A/B again and count how many plugs can be used in a project
vs. using the plug-ins on a sole Ide setup. Check cpu and
hd usage between the two on a dense project.


Sorry peeps...but you KNEW I couldn't let this Timme'
inflate his head too large.

Look at the bright side kid...you got free tips on
improving on what already works.

Here's another tip (for those who may go the OC past
133mhz):

Buy some PC-150 ram for your next oc setup. Set to 2225.
Watch your system outperform once again over standard PC-
133 users.
Apply the above hybrid scenario and laugh in monkeyboys....
naahhh don't laugh. It's not nice.

rinse.
repeat.
The word "solid" is pri1 when we build DAW's.

Love ya honey,
Joed

Yawwwwwwwwwwwn...yada..yada...yada. Basically, my system
is a hybrid system so I don't know what point you're trying
to make. I already new all that nonsense you just spewed.
I don't have a U160, because I can't afford to constantly
keep upgrading like you can, I'm doing real work. I built
my own DAW and it works great. You're the one who started
with the name calling like a little child by calling me a
liar. I don't mind constructive criticism, I'm always
willing to learn new stuff......but obviously to you I was
lying about the performance of my IDE vs. SCSI hard drive
on the same system, but obviously you're not as smart as
you think you are about DAW's.

Liar w/o a cause,
Brian Franz

Hi,

>7200 RPM IDE Barricuda Max. Transfer rate: 45.5 MB/Sec

This is not true, ¿what program you uses to benchmark?, try
with the HD tach.

I was benchmarked the fastest ATA disks, the IBM 75 GXP and
the 60 GXP, and the best transfers was 35 MB/s.

Go to the www.storagereview.com and read.

Bye

Imac, thanks for pointing out the # of ins too.....

>

This sums you up in a word.
Look everybody, Mr. cool thinks he's the greatest thing
since sliced bread. We bore him. Life bores him. He
needs some "real" challenges. Please, guys liek youa re
adime a dozen.
Could point to one sad conclusion...
somebodys been abused as a child. Very sad.

I gave 3 plausible answers as to why you're tests might be
premature:
- Lack of a U160 ctrlr
- Varied HD tests
- you're lying

You chose to FREAK OUT over "you're lying". hmmmmmmmm....

BTW: You didn't know jack shit about my reply. I can see
it all over your other posts floating around here.

I can't figure out "why" you have a problem with my
questioning your "complete" tests. Do you have a problem
with me? Scsi? Or the fact I am right?

You're attitude is killing you.

Love you

C'mon guys, chill out!

If you want to bash each other, take it to a different
post, or via email.

Thanks to all that have submitted their setups. This has
given me a starting reference of what Vegas can do.

You're right. Sorry.

I'll move on.

JD

Hey, JoeD I'm still missing your point with all your
criticism. Not once have you mentioned what your system is
or what it's performance was, just that everything you
build is the golden child of DAWs. Wasn't that the point
of this original post to help each other out? I gave my
honest test results using Vegas with the system I built
(that was the original question). You have given nothing,
but spewed nonsense about how great of a DAW builder you
are. I will probably most likely agree with you that you
might even know more than me when it comes to building
DAWs, but that's probably because I'm busy doing recording
work with mine, while you're just busy building them. You
gave your 3 points on why my IDE was faster than my
SCSI...the one you went with, was that I was a liar, so why
would we consider your other 2 reasons feasible? I bought
the SCSI with the intention that it would be faster with
more stable throughput. After reading other SCSI vs. IDE
information, I tested my system and the fact is that I was
able to record more tracks with the IDE using
Vegas....bottom line. I still use my SCSI drive to record
on, because that is my designated audio drive.


And as far as getting your u160 for free. You built a
system for a friend and that's how you got it in return.
Well I don't call that free. I suppose I could say all my
studio equipment I got for free, because my clients paid
for it when I did work for them. Obviously, if you build
systems for free, then you would not be considered a "Pro",
otherwise people would pay you to set up their systems
rather than giving you parts. At least that's how I make a
living, but it seems like economics is not your forte.