UDMA-66 VS SCSI

[MILLARD STEPHANE]

Hi everybody !

What do you think is better :

a new UDMA-66 DISK + MOTHERBOARD or

a new SCSI DISK ???

I really wonder about the increased performances.

Any help ??????

Bye

------------------

[KKu]

Hm, as far as i know, SCSI is still better for multitrack recording & playback. Or at least I've had problems with IDE HDs, it seems that IDE devices give data by bursts, SCSI gives quite much same amount of data, no matter how "busy" your computer is.

So, if money is not a problem (yeah sure(!)), then I suggest that U buy a good UW-SCSI card & HD.

------------------
.KKu

[Arnoud de Jong]

Hi,
In my opinion there are more aspects to take into consideration.
- I think the modern UDMA66 disks can measure up to SCSI quite good these days and have a much better price/quality ratio (you have a LOT more Gigabytes for your money).
- Considering the previous point, multitracking doesn't only need speed, but also a lot of storage capacity.
- Nowadays SCSI harddisks are considered more suitable for server purposes than for workstations, where EIDE is the better choice, also because SCSI makes a hell of a lot more noise because of the higher revolution speed (in most cases your computer is in the same room as where you make your recordings, so if you also use a microphone, this might be something to take into serious consideration). I have good experiences with Quantum harddisks, that are very low-noise.
- However, IF you decide to buy SCSI, buy a separate SCSI host-adapter and not a mainboard with an integrated SCSI adapter. The advantage of a separate adapter is that you can 'take it with you' when you decide to upgrade your computer or to buy a new computer. Also these adapters are better equipped for other external purposes, like scanners. One tricky thing however is, that (if I remember correctly, but I might be wrong) that once you implement a 'slower' device in the SCSI chain, SCSI switches to the slowest mode... As you probably know, there is a rather confusing number of different SCSI standards with different speeds. So make sure you get the right gear. I would advice to use the SCSI only for the harddisk(s) OR external devices like a scanner/cd writer (so not AND).
- You have to have a fair understanding of SCSI if you don't want to run into problems with termination (this remark is only relevant when you decide to hook up more SCSI devices).
- Also important: SCSI harddisks have been designed to run permanently (like in servers). Switching them on and off all the time (like you do with a desktop computer) seems to be bad for their health.
- Other things like processor speed, amount of internal memory and the presence/absence of other programs running in the background have an important influance on the performance of your recording computer. In your case a would prefer to invest in a better processor, more memory and an absolutely high quality mainboard and a very large EIDE harddisk instead of an expensive SCSI harddisk.
I hope this helps you to make the right choice
Arnoud.

[MILLARD STEPHANE]

So as I see it, I still have 2 solutions :

For the moment, I use a PII 350 with a
4.3 GO HD + 128 MO RAM.
The hard disk is a UDMA33.

This means that If I want to change my HD
to a UDM66 model I have to buy a new Mother board, perhaps a new processor.

If I want to upgrade with a SCSI disk, I
can keep everything I have. I know that you
have to pay a lot more for a SCSCI HD than
for a UDM66 but what I really ignore is
about performances.

I'm really curious about the number of audio
tracks you can run with effects in real time
in a sequencer.

how many effects you can use at the same time, and so on .......

It seems that SCSI free up your system
( how many % ).

At last I don't want to spread money for
a new motherboard + a UDMA66 HD to realise at
the end that I can only manage a few tracks
more...

to be continued ....




------------------