I got a question I've always been curious about. I'm aware of all the things shared here so far, but how about those that may leave a pc running all the time. Do you set it for low power when you won't be there for a few hours and allow it to turn your hard drives down to low power? If so, is the strain on them from them turning off and on in low power mode worse than shutting the pc down completely? I've always been curious about this. Thanks in advance.

-Danny

I honestly don't know what the answer is to that one Danny.

I've heard that powering up/down is as stressful as leaving them on, but is there any proof of this?

For me, the real downside to leaving things powered on permanently is the electricity bill!

One thing we all should be aware of is that EVERY drive on your system will at some point in the future, fail. So we should all be extremely OCD about backing up - certainly your projects should be copied regularly, and you should also re-image your system drive whenever a known change has been made - this includes after installing plugins.

DeeringAmps


SSD for audio?
I thought constant write/rewrite was an issue for an SSD?
Great for your sample libraries, fast load etc.
Am I way off here?

T

AFAIK they're OK if you use intelligent SSD's which do not write/overwrite at the same spot all the time, but use variably the whole available capacity of the disc. Also, AFAIK, the writing speed of SSD's isn't actually better than that of HDDs, so the advantages in plain recording are questionable (???).
 
About the never-ending debate concerning switch it off/leave it running, my 2 cents is:
The two times that I've lost a HD, it was due to failing bearings, which in my understanding relates directly to usage hours. Theoretically the discs are built for xxx-number of running hours, not xxx-number of switch-ons. Even though switching on is, so I've heard, the critical moment for the parts that are about to break, I believe the total running hours are more critical. My policy is switching off for the night.
If I work two hours in the morning, and I know I'll be back in the evening, I switch off.
If I'm about to use my DAW now and then during the day, I keep it running. I have all sleep mode settings and such disabled, as I've had only bad experiences with them.
 
I doubt there is any reliable tests about this, at least I've never heard of any.

The new DAW I have on order will have.

Disk 1 (conventional 1TB drive with 60gb SSD cache drive) System & Programs
Disk 2 (conventional 2TB drive) Projects and Audio
Disk 3 (conventional 2TB drive) Samples
Disk 4 256 GB SSD drive. Copies of large third party Kontakt sample libraries that get heavy use and have long load times. e.g. Orange Tree Samples' Steel string and Strawberry.

Hey!

This is my opinion. I've been using SSD's for audio for 3-4 years. The oldest one has been used a LOT and it still shows 99% health. I would say that the talk about SSD's being worse than regular drives is bullcrap.

But as I've said before. Go for Intel ones. Their failure rate is SO much lower than any other brands that they easily is worth the extra money.

And dont stare yourselves blind on the performance numbers. I hardly notice any difference between my slowest drives and my fastest. But the difference between SSD and regular drives is massive. If you haven't your OS on SSD's yet then go for it. It's like getting a new computer and the best upgrade I've ever done to any computer.

/M

Question back to original post:

Should I make my SONAR audio drive (dedicated and non partitioned) D: or does it matter if it was E: or further down the letters chain?

My point being that if all drives (no matter amount used with no partitioning) are dedicated to their files, OS Apps, Sonar Audio, Streaming softsynths etc... does it matter what order there in?

metz


Hey!

This is my opinion. I've been using SSD's for audio for 3-4 years. The oldest one has been used a LOT and it still shows 99% health. I would say that the talk about SSD's being worse than regular drives is bullcrap.

But as I've said before. Go for Intel ones. Their failure rate is SO much lower than any other brands that they easily is worth the extra money.

And dont stare yourselves blind on the performance numbers. I hardly notice any difference between my slowest drives and my fastest. But the difference between SSD and regular drives is massive. If you haven't your OS on SSD's yet then go for it. It's like getting a new computer and the best upgrade I've ever done to any computer.

/M

How big and how many  SSDs do you have, then? In audio the minimum size usually desired by users is more like 1 Tb than 500 Gb.
Good quality SSDs of 500 Gb are still very expensive, not to mention 1 Tb, and I'm sure that's a key factor to many. 500-1000 dollars
for a single unit of storage medium is so much that I don't believe you get any bang for the buck, if you compare the pros and cons. 
 
And even though you have good experiences, I do believe the SSDs are just reaching adulthood. I've read so many posts by people who have bought, for example, three SSDs, one of which lasted only for days and similar. Especially the economy models of the cheapest (?) brand, OCZ seem to be very unreliable, if you trust the user forums.
 
To moffdnb: It doesn't matter what letters you use for additional discs, as long as the system drive is C.

My point being that if all drives (no matter amount used with no partitioning) are dedicated to their files, OS Apps, Sonar Audio, Streaming softsynths etc... does it matter what order there in?

 
You can call the drives anything you like.

Cool.  Good to know that  ;>

I have 4 SSD's at the moment. But I have around 10 if counting various laptops etc... bout disksize. Of course SSD's are more expansive when it comes to large drives. I'd say  that I have saved that extra money in time many times around though.

I use 120Gb and 250Gb drives. I dont see the drives as long time storage. For that I have a larger 2TB regular drive. When I've finished projects I dont need to work on I move them to the larger drive.

Wait until you think the technique is ready. But I'd say it's unnecessary.

/M

Kalle Rantaaho

metz


Hey!

This is my opinion. I've been using SSD's for audio for 3-4 years. The oldest one has been used a LOT and it still shows 99% health. I would say that the talk about SSD's being worse than regular drives is bullcrap.

But as I've said before. Go for Intel ones. Their failure rate is SO much lower than any other brands that they easily is worth the extra money.

And dont stare yourselves blind on the performance numbers. I hardly notice any difference between my slowest drives and my fastest. But the difference between SSD and regular drives is massive. If you haven't your OS on SSD's yet then go for it. It's like getting a new computer and the best upgrade I've ever done to any computer.

/M

How big and how many  SSDs do you have, then? In audio the minimum size usually desired by users is more like 1 Tb than 500 Gb.
Good quality SSDs of 500 Gb are still very expensive, not to mention 1 Tb, and I'm sure that's a key factor to many. 500-1000 dollars
for a single unit of storage medium is so much that I don't believe you get any bang for the buck, if you compare the pros and cons. 
 
And even though you have good experiences, I do believe the SSDs are just reaching adulthood. I've read so many posts by people who have bought, for example, three SSDs, one of which lasted only for days and similar. Especially the economy models of the cheapest (?) brand, OCZ seem to be very unreliable, if you trust the user forums.
 
To moffdnb: It doesn't matter what letters you use for additional discs, as long as the system drive is C.