MBP + SSD drive

[George88]

I wonder if anyone has any experience with this configuration. My current laptop is a 2010 MBP with 8gig of ram and a (SATA?/Non-SSD) drive. I store all of my VI samples on an external drive (non-SSD)and would like to eliminate the external drive.

 

So,if I everything (OS,plug-ins, and sample library) is on one Tb SSD, does anyone have any knowledge about whether or not the processor will bottle neck if I am using one hard drive for processing and moving VI data simultaneously?

 

I'm not recording on it, only using it as a soundsource: Mainstage, Omnisphere, LASS strings, Komplete 8, and VI Labs True Keys.

 

Currently, I am capped at 8 gigs of RAM, but could replace the optical drive with an SSD drive. The new laptop has 16 gig of RAM.

 

Does anyone think I would see much improvement with with data transfer or would it be any different than my current configuration: Currently I am firewire 800 from the latpop into an external drive, and then firewire 800 from that drive into a MOTU Ultra Lite with firewire 400 in. I would like to remove the daisy chain and upgrade to a new thunderbolt I/O.

 

Thanks for anyone's input, I appreciate it.

 

 

[Joe Muscara]

I have a 2009 MBP in which I replaced the HDD with an SSD. I love it. It's WAY faster overall.

 

That said, I have not put my sample libraries on it (the original version of Ivory) so I can't help you with your specific question. Hopefully someone here can.

[mate stubb]

I do all my software dev work on a recent MBP with SSD. It's way faster and lighter than the previous one it replaced. Retina display is none to shabby either!

 

That being said, I could not afford this machine if my company didn't provide it.

[johnchop]

George88,

 

I have an MB Pro 13" from a couple of years ago. I did the Other World Computing swap-superdrive-for-SSD upgrade. I keep my most often-used sample libraries (Omnisphere, some Kontakt pianos) on the SSD.

 

Performance is just off-the-chart faster.

 

Disk I/O is the weakest point of your existing setup. Having everything on one drive when you are not attempting a lot of simulatenous read/write... no, I would not expect a bottleneck.

 

-John

[George88]

George88,

 

Disk I/O is the weakest point of your existing setup. Having everything on one drive when you are not attempting a lot of simulatenous read/write... no, I would not expect a bottleneck.

 

-John

 

Thank, John. Are you saying that my current daisy chain system is the weak point and 2), that recording (reading and writing) is more intensive than playing samples? Thanks for clarifying.

 

 

[timwat]

I have an early 2011 15" MBP, SSD main drive. I took out the superdrive and used the original system drive in that slot for storage. So far has been seamless but am not using as sound source for live use.

 

Of course, now that I've just said that it will probably crash....

 

[OB Dave]

Similar situation here. 2009 MBP. These machines shipped with a 5400 RPM drive so even going to 7200 you will notice a performance increase, but the switch to SSD has been phenomenal. I've been totally ruined for spinning platter drives. SSD read speeds are much, much faster than write speeds, and modern SSDs will saturate the SATA bus, so you will have plenty of firepower and throughput. If the OS was having to swap memory, that will occur many times faster as well. If you can afford the 1TB drive, go for it.

[George88]

This is great information. Thank you very much. And Dave, I use your drawbars with VB3 and it has made the experience much, much more musical.Thank you. I will probably use it with a FA-06 when it delivers. What will that configuration require? Thanks!

[johnchop]

Are you saying that my current daisy chain system is the weak point and 2), that recording (reading and writing) is more intensive than playing samples? Thanks for clarifying.

 

Yes to both, and in short, you should expect a huge performance boost with SSD.

 

So, I would not be comfortable doing a of recording to an SSD, but for normal OS operations it should be fine.

 

That said: always keep a backup!

[Joe Muscara]

That said: always keep a backup!

Or three!!!

[Leh173]

I upgraded my MBP 3,1 2007 model with a 500gb Samsung SSD and the performance difference is staggering. I'm still using and external FW drive to record to. All works well. I also replaced the optical drive with a caddy to hold the old 7200 rpm drive that was in the machine, but I'm not currently using it, as I was getting crashes, but those I discovered were related to wifi not the drive so I'll try it again. Two thumbs up for the SSD upgrade though. Can use Logic Pro 9 no worries with it.

[Ashville.Guru]

Allow me to raise a note of skepticism.

 

There's audio performance, and there's general system performance. There's absolutely no doubt that an SSD will aid in the latter - faster boot times, and faster load times for your samples.

 

But this discussion needs to get down to the specific yardsticks of audio performance:

• Increased audio load at the same buffer size, without pops and clicks. E.g. will an SSD allow you to layer several instances of Omnisphere where spinning platters will not?
  
• Alternatively - enabling same audio load at lower buffer sizes. E.g. will an SSD allow you to go down to 64 samples, if you're currently stuck at 128?

The seductive thing about SSDs is that everyone and their middle-aged aunt can immediately see the *general* system performance boost. I've never seen a demonstration of how audio performance, specifically, has improved with an SSD. I've been willing and eager to be converted for quite a while now - but let alone a conclusive demonstration, haven't even seen an anecdotal report specific to audio performance...

 

And yes, I'm aware of the theoretical arguments for why faster disk read/write should boost audio performance for sample streaming. Trouble is, I've seen too many elegant theories debunked, especially with complex things like audio processing.

 

Part of my skepticism stems from recent personal experience where swapping out a faster HD for a slower one made absolutely no difference to audio performance.

 

 

- Guru

[Leh173]

Well so far I can run logic at 64 samples and even record at it with my old presonus firestudio mobile. I even did a 24/96k project with no problems with system performance. Also the increased responsiveness of the computer and Logic is very much worth it. Also is has enabled me to keep an old machine alive. It's running 10.8.5 no problems. As for a torture test, as in how many plugs ins and effects I can run I haven't done, but the overall improvement in performance audio and otherwise seems worth it.

[Ashville.Guru]

@Leh173 - I respect your experience, and that of everyone else who's posted here. But in my experience, audio processing is a complex interplay of so many different factors, that it's tricky to pin down where a benefit is coming from, or what the bottleneck is. 64 samples@24/96 doesn't mean much, since I can achieve the same with a humble 5400 RPM drive. What we need to see is a clean comparison - everything else held constant - ceteris paribus. Something on the lines of "I was getting pops and clicks running this plugin at 64 samples, I switched to SSD, kept everything else the same, and now hey, no pops and clicks".

 

I've been scanning several forums and blogs for years now, and I've never seen a single report like the above (I'd actually be happy if something has flown under my radar, though!). In contrast, there are several reports of improvements upon upgrading CPU/interface.

 

Hence, I remain skeptical.

 

But, one thing seems to be clear - the overall, general system performance improvement seems so obvious, that everyone who's switched to SSDs seems very happy with the investement - audio performance be hanged...!

 

- Guru

[Markay]

But in my experience, audio processing is a complex interplay of so many different factors, that it's tricky to pin down where a benefit is coming from, or what the bottleneck is. 64 samples@24/96 doesn't mean much, since I can achieve the same with a humble 5400 RPM drive. What we need to see is a clean comparison - everything else held constant - ceteris paribus. Something on the lines of "I was getting pops and clicks running this plugin at 64 samples, I switched to SSD, kept everything else the same, and now hey, no pops and clicks".

 

I've been scanning several forums and blogs for years now, and I've never seen a single report like the above (I'd actually be happy if something has flown under my radar, though!). In contrast, there are several reports of improvements upon upgrading CPU/interface.

 

Hence, I remain skeptical.

 

But, one thing seems to be clear - the overall, general system performance improvement seems so obvious, that everyone who's switched to SSDs seems very happy with the investment - audio performance be hanged...!

- Guru

AG I switched to SSD 3 months ago because a 12 month old 7,200 HDD failed.

 

My experience has been the predictable, faster boot and MainStage load times. But with an i5 and 4 gig of RAM I can make it crackle and pop at will. I bet I could make your set up crackle and pop if you let me loose on it for 5 mins.

 

Although I don't use the internal sound card as that and the amount of RAM, processor and motherboard have not changed I think it would unreasonable to expect that I have transformed my machine by adding an SSD.

 

But what I do know is that when I load a patch which accesses large samples and the OS uses the SSD for virtual memory it is accessing the virtual memory at far faster speeds than with any HDD.

 

Also the issue of SSD's not coping with endless writes bears closer examination. I know of a machine that runs a complex calculation engine that writes temporary databases 24/7/365 attached to webservers. It has an array of Gen 1 SSD's in it so the calcs occur as fast as possible. It has been pumping away for 2 years now without any failure of the SSD's.

 

I asked the vendor of the SSD now in my gigging laptop if SSD premature failure was common if the SSD was exposed to heavy write cycles. He said that some Gen 1 SSD's had that issue but that all Gen 2 SSD's were fine. He stressed "some Gen 1 SSD's" as he built the SSD machine that is attached to the webserver I mentioned above and he pointed out that it had not failed. It goes back to him to be fixed if/when it does.

 

So based on this I would have no hesitation in using current generation quality SSD's for heavy write cycle functions such as recording.

 

The fact that SSD's do not have spinning platters is enough reason for me to use them for portable gigging machines. Whether any peer reviewed research published in an authoritative journal exists is irrelevant. It is different form of storage which provides faster access times - not an elixir of youth for tired laptops.

 

[Reezekeys]

I'm with Markay on this. Big audio projects with crossfade files all over the place, VIs streaming dozens of notes simultaneously I just feel better knowing there's no poor r/w head furiously jumping around a spinning platter. I also got to experience another benefit of SSD drives:

 

At a recent gig, our tech went on stage to do a final check before we took the stage. While walking around my rig he accidentally pulled out the firewire cable connected to my samples SSD. We took the stage to begin playing and I glanced at my MacBook Pro's screen and saw the "the disk may not have been ejected properly" message. I had to tell the fellas to wait while I rebooted two copies of Bidule and loaded in two setups with multiple streaming instruments. With my new MacBook Pro (with SSD drive) and my SSD samples drive it took probably around 15 seconds total.

[Ashville.Guru]

Guys, I'm making a subtle, nuanced point, and its easy to miss.

 

Are SSDs a good idea, especially for live audio use? Hell, yes. No questions there. Who doesn't want faster boot/load times and reduced failure rates?

 

Now that we've got that out of the way - I'm yet to see any info on how SSDs affect the very specific audio processing yardsticks mentioned above.

 

Again, SSDs may be a good idea in general, but let there be no misconception that they enable more resource-hungry plugins at lower buffers. Until proven otherwise...!

 

- Guru

 

P.S. Here's where I'm coming from: I load my samples at home, put the laptop to sleep and wake it up on stage. So my load time is exactly zero - way faster than an SSD I have 8 gigs of RAM, so there's very little disk i/o happening on stage anyway. I often wonder why more people don't do it this way - even less chances of failure, less setup time.

 

 

[Reezekeys]

Again, SSDs may be a good idea in general, but let there be no misconception that they enable more resource-hungry plugins at lower buffers. Until proven otherwise...!

Yes, apples & oranges. What you're talking about is much more a function of CPU power, not disk performance. Who is claiming that SSDs let you run more plugins?

 

P.S. Here's where I'm coming from: I load my samples at home, put the laptop to sleep and wake it up on stage. So my load time is exactly zero - way faster than an SSD I have 8 gigs of RAM, so there's very little disk i/o happening on stage anyway. I often wonder why more people don't do it this way - even less chances of failure, less setup time.

This is a smart of course, but would not have made a difference in the situation described in my post above! If that happened to you, how long would it take for your spinning platters to re-load your setup while your bandmates waited?

[Markay]

AG, leh173 didn't provide specs for his machine, maybe it only has 2gig of RAM in which case it was probably hitting the HDD with 2gigs of virtual memory.

 

If this is the case then even you would have to concede that an SSD would dramatically speed up the swap file read/write speed. In that case lower buffers may well be achievable where they were not with an older HDD. Therefore better audio performance for leh173, or me, or you if we were using a similarly specced machine.

[Ashville.Guru]

What you're talking about is much more a function of CPU power, not disk performance. Who is claiming that SSDs let you run more plugins?

Ermm - that's what I though the OP was referring to when he asked "whether or not the processor will bottle neck". But now I'm wondering if I misinterpreted that! Wouldn't be the first time...

 

This is a smart of course, but would not have made a difference in the situation described in my post above! If that happened to you, how long would it take for your spinning platters to re-load your setup while your bandmates waited?

Obviously, more time than with an SSD. But then, I don't need to use an external drive in the first place...! Which is why I've never encountered the kind of situation you're describing. Why would you need an external drive that can be disconnected, leading to mishaps like the one you experienced, if your samples are already loaded at home?

 

The 'keep bandmates waiting' thing used to happen, back before I discovered this whole sleep-wakeup trick. Not anymore, thankfully!

 

- Guru

[Reezekeys]

Why would you need an external drive that can be disconnected, leading to mishaps like the one you experienced, if your samples are already loaded at home?

If all your samples are fully loaded into ram, obviously you wouldn't need an external drive. If you're streaming samples like me, I suppose you'd be able to avoid my kind of mishap if you used your internal drive to stream samples. My new MacBook Pro's SSD internal drive is half the size of my previous laptop's and I would rather not set aside the 30 or so gigs of space to hold my samples space is already tight. And I'm not 100% sure I would want to use my main system & everyday computing SSD for streaming samples (which ironically is the OP's query that started this thread! I didn't answer him directly because I have no personal experience doing it). I got my sample-holding SSD a while ago at a great price, it worked great with my old laptop and works just fine with my new one (although I don't like the thunderbolt to firewire adapter and will probably put this SSD in a USB3 case soon).

[Ashville.Guru]

If this is the case then even you would have to concede that an SSD would dramatically speed up the swap file read/write speed. In that case lower buffers may well be achievable where they were not with an older HDD.

Makes sense of course, but as I said earlier, I'm aware of the theoretical advantages. In my experience, both professionally and with audio processing, the real world has a way of deflating the most 'obviously correct' of theories. I'd need to see a practical demonstration of this effect, and I'm curious as to why it's so hard to find one on the net...

 

Why would you need an external drive that can be disconnected, leading to mishaps like the one you experienced, if your samples are already loaded at home?

I stream most of my samples.

I'm curious - have you tried with samples streaming from the internal hard drive, and compared the performance? We've already seen the disadvantage of external drives, in terms of stability. I'm trying to get a quantitative feel for the advantage.

 

- Guru

[Reezekeys]

Talk about cross posting! You replied to a post I just got done editing and completely changed.

 

To clarify no I have not compared streaming from an external vs an internal, because I already have my external, it's loaded with all the samples I need, it works fine with my current setup and I am short of space on my new laptop's SSD. As far as stability, I'm not sure what you're referring to. My main issue is the thunderbolt to firewire adapter I now need to use (since my SSD enclosure uses FW800). It's a big and somewhat weighty dongle that hangs off the laptop's thunderbolt port, which is not a very secure connection.

[Ashville.Guru]

Ah, that clarifies things to an extent. By instability, I mean the potential of disconnecting the external drive, as your tech did on the gig. Which can never happen with the internal drive.

 

My new MacBook Pro's SSD internal drive is half the size of my previous laptop's and I would rather not set aside the 30 or so gigs of space to hold my samples space is already tight.

Which is precisely why I haven't gone with the SSD. Let's revisit the question you asked me earlier:

 

If that happened to you, how long would it take for your spinning platters to re-load your setup while your bandmates waited?

Given the price constraints, I'd rather have those big, slow spinning platters that don't force me to use an external drive that can get disconnected and keep my bandmates waiting in the first place...! :wink: Prevention, as they say, is better than cure.

 

So my question is still unanswered - given the potential for mishaps (like the one Reezekeys experienced), has anyone actually practically demonstrated the advantage of an external drive?

 

- Guru

[Markay]

If you're streaming samples like me, I suppose you'd be able to avoid my kind of mishap if you used your internal drive to stream samples. My new MacBook Pro's SSD internal drive is half the size of my previous laptop's and I would rather not set aside the 30 or so gigs of space to hold my samples space is already tight.

 

Ever thought about swapping those movies you watch on the laptop on the way to a gig with the samples on the external drive

 

I don't understand the issue about a bottle neck on the internal drive, everything including the OS is getting sucked along the buss to the processor and RAM, anything called from an external drive has to be way slower than that from a direct connection the mother board. And not withstanding the speed of an internal SSD, current generation processors will be hanging around wasting clock cycles waiting for the data request rather than being too busy to cope with the incoming data.

[Ian Benhamou]

Late 2011 MBP. Last year I upgraded to 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD hard drive. The difference is immense!!!

 

I use it live on a regular basis as my only sound source, with a backup MBP with exact same specs and configuration running in parallel in case the main computer crashes. I'm using Kontakt running on it's own (i.e. without a DAW host) with tons of samples loaded and it runs as smooth as a baby's butt! It's great.

 

Oh yeah, I'm also running Ableton Live hosting Guitar Rig and Waves bundle for vocal effects at the same time.

 

And I'm recording the show on multi-track to an external drive!

 

It sounds crazy but the computer handles it without a hitch! Just need a fan pointed directly at it or else it overheats.

[timwat]

I use it live on a regular basis as my only sound source, with a backup MBP with exact same specs and configuration running in parallel in case the main computer crashes. I'm using Kontakt running on it's own (i.e. without a DAW host) with tons of samples loaded and it runs as smooth as a baby's butt! It's great.

 

Oh yeah, I'm also running Ableton Live hosting Guitar Rig and Waves bundle for vocal effects at the same time.

 

And I'm recording the show on multi-track to an external drive!

 

It sounds crazy but the computer handles it without a hitch! Just need a fan pointed directly at it or else it overheats.

 

Wait. Ian, your post totally grabbed my attention.

 

Would you mind detailing a little more about your rig...either here, a new thread, or you can just PM me. As I've said here before, I've tried using my MBP as a live sound source (MainStage and Ivory standalone) multiple times and been frustrated each time...but your config is substantially different than anything I tried.

 

You're running all that, and recording at the same time? How do you run the two rigs parallel and how do you accomplish switchover? And how did you determine the necessity for the fan?

 

[Reezekeys]

I don't understand the issue about a bottle neck on the internal drive, everything including the OS is getting sucked along the buss to the processor and RAM, anything called from an external drive has to be way slower than that from a direct connection the mother board. And not withstanding the speed of an internal SSD, current generation processors will be hanging around wasting clock cycles waiting for the data request rather than being too busy to cope with the incoming data.

You're probably right and I think you're inspiring me to start moving some samples over to my internal and see how it goes. The external was necessary with my last laptop, a 2007 MacBook Pro. It was a stroke of good luck (and totally unexpected) that I got my new MBP with an internal SSD (long story made shorter: Apple offered to trade my 2007 model for a brand new one after they were unable to serialize its logic board an oversight by an Apple tech who had replaced the board two years earlier. Needless to say I accepted their offer!).

 

This may be old fashioned thinking but I see streaming samples as putting stress on a drive. An SSD, well, maybe not or not as much, I don't know. Anyway, part of the deal with my getting a brand new 15" quad-core i7 Retina MacBook Pro in an even exchange for my almost 7-year-old model was that I could not quibble on the configuration. I got the low end of the current 15" model: a 256GB SSD and 8 gigs of ram. And if you know your new Apple laptops, you know these are completely non-upgradeable. I will never be able to add more ram or get a bigger internal hard drive. And this is my everyday computer as well as my gigging "instrument." So right now, keeping the external for sample storage seems the logical and safe thing to do, although my outlook could change.

 

And yes, I have a few movies on there but I've had to cull a lot of stuff from my previous MBP, which had a 500GB drive (of which I was using almost 400 gigs).

[Ashville.Guru]

I'm using Kontakt running on it's own (i.e. without a DAW host) with tons of samples loaded and it runs as smooth as a baby's butt! It's great.

 

Oh yeah, I'm also running Ableton Live hosting Guitar Rig and Waves bundle for vocal effects at the same time.

 

And I'm recording the show on multi-track to an external drive

Similar story here. I run several instances of plugins of various kinds, background drone sequence, plus my vocals through effects plugins... all at 64 buffers. Several of my patches have 8-10 plugins runing simultaneously. And yes, I have done simultaneous recording with Ableton Live. I've done some stress testing, and I estimate I could double the audio load without pops and clicks, so I have *tons* of headroom in my rig.

 

And all this with a humble 5,400RPM HDD, not an SSD...!

 

Which reinforces my skepticism that the SSD had much to do with Ian's rig performance. Like I said, it's hard to pinpoint where the bottleneck is in a complex system.

 

If you look at 'laptop for live rig recommendation' threads here and elsewhere, SSDs seem to receive an inordinate amount of attention. Faster boot/load times/overall system responsiveness are all fine. But what really determines a good live setup is how many plugins you can run simultaneously, and at what buffer size.

 

More headroom = greater sonic palette. When can I layer more simultaneous plugins and effects, my bandmates and (to an extent) my audience notice and appreciate it. Nobody gives two hoots about whether it took 30 seconds or 180 seconds to load my samples at home... :smirk:

 

Which is why the inordinate attention to SSDs baffles me. The awesome headroom in my setup comes from the i7 processor and the firewire interface. There are several studies out there that practically demonstrate how important these two are to headroom, and I've experienced it firsthand myself. There are no such practical demonstrations anywhere of the contribution of SSDs to audio processing.

 

And yet I've seen many cases where people have compromised with an i5 processor, because of budget constraints after shelling money for SSDs...! That's sad, really. Hence my persistent line of skeptical questioning.

 

tl;dr: SSDs are an expensive(*) investment with questionable (at best) benefits to a live rig. There are other specs which have more guaranteed, demonstrable benefits.

 

- Guru

 

*Relatively, of course!

[johnchop]

SSDs are an expensive investment with questionable (at best) benefits to a live rig. There are other specs which have more guaranteed, demonstrable benefits.

 

AG,

 

Questionable benefits? No, I don't think they're questionable, especially if you are doing patch changes in something like Omnisphere. You might not care how long it takes to boot your machine (i.e. recover from failure) or load a sample set, but I'm sure others might.

 

Now, claiming better audio performance would silly, but for getting the data into RAM, there's no contest.

 

And yes, I've tested this, albeit with a wall clock, not an I/O monitor.

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5D5D2pPmBk

 

-John