xpander Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I know that Solid State HD's are fast, but they are also a little expensive for such a small amount of storage space. I want the fastest speeds available for an audio drive and my sample library. So, I was thinking about running a combination of these drives on a Mac Pro and was wondering if anyone would like to comment on both the speed and reliability of these hard drives. Thank you. - xpander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfromfl Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Without knowing the specs of your system or what exactly you're trying to do, it's probably difficult to comment on the components in question. I just wanted to weigh in with my own experience, that I've never been limited by my 7200rpm external drive. I recently ordered a SATA drive from Soundsonline with three more libraries on it, and that is 7200rpm as well. Just my two cents. -Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I want the fastest speeds available for an audio drive and my sample library. The fastest drive available is probably a 15,000 rpm SAS drive. However those are usually a bad choice for most professional audio use. Is there any particular reason you want the fastest speed available? Most professionals use 7,200 rpm SATA drives as they are usually the best choice for audio, being designed for single user desktop stations, providing a short seek time, excellent reliability and the best quality/price ratio on the market. Sometimes the fastest is not the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xpander Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Thank you for your replies. I have been considering the WD "Raptor" 10,000 RPM drives because of their short seek time. For the most part, I am spending much more time editing audio that I have created or processed with Kyma and Bias Peak Pro. Honestly, I haven't had any problems with 7200 RPM SATA's. The WD drives were a suggestion from a colleague of mine who has been using them for a few years now. As for the SSD's, I could just be getting caught up in "the hype" about them being faster than regular HD's. I really don't know much about them. This is my reason for posting my question here. I am simply curious about any experience others may have. Thanks again. - xpander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Honestly, I haven't had any problems with 7200 RPM SATA's. That's the reason everybody uses them, they're fast enough, they don't overheat, they are reliable, they don't make too much noise, don't suck too much power etc... anything that rotates faster is likely to have any or all of the aforementioned issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xpander Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Thanks everybody!! - xpander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpiccolini Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 sorry to revive the thread, but I need a new pair of HDDs and was thinking about the new seagate 5900RPM (2GB SATA3). They're cheap, same sustained output of a 7200RPM (according to Seagate´s site) but 12ms seek time opposed to 9ms on a 7200. Also less noise, heat and consumption... Am I wrong? Will see any benefit from a 7200 nowadays?. Do the slower ones last longer or are more secure?. regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplets Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 You don't want these eco or green drives for audio applications. Stick with 7200 rpm drives, like a WD Caviar Black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpiccolini Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ok, thanks. Can you please elaborate why? 10db less on each drive and 64MB cache looked nice. I never use 60 tracks @96KHz... more like 30 @48KHZ but also a bunch of heavy EXS. The drives will reside on a FW800 external housing Previous ones were seagates 7200-12. One already failed. a little more than a year of medium use. So I take your WD suggestion seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplets Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Eco drives are not consistent in spinning. You don't want that for audio playback. Besides, FW is slower than SATA, so a slower spinning drive will make it worse. WD Caviar Blacks are meant for demanding apps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisgab Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Honestly, I haven't had any problems with 7200 RPM SATA's. That's the reason everybody uses them, they're fast enough, they don't overheat, they are reliable, they don't make too much noise, don't suck too much power etc... anything that rotates faster is likely to have any or all of the aforementioned issues. I recently installed additional 2TB Seagate Barr.... 7.2k RPM in my macpro (I don't remember in which topic David suggested that model) but they work flawless! Greatest upgrade I done on that tower! I got mine for 169$ or something from newegg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpiccolini Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 thanks for the answers. The message is clear. I was hoping that the quieter and cheaper drives were fast enough, but it seems not... Seagate..... hmmm. not very happy with them lately. I want to replace both because one failed; I don't want to risk another fail with the remaining one. Maybe the newer ones are better, but ATM I'd like to buy a WD. regards from Madrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.