IDE Vs. SCSI

[KikkyMonk]

I know when SCSI came out IDE was really slow so going with SCSI was a way better idea. But now that IDE has improved dramatically. My question is which is faster? I am going to get a hard drive for an akai s6000 sampler and want the fastest seek and load time. I know that SCSI can give some people headaches. Also id have to get a SCSI controller card for my puter to interface the two (or would the USB card for the sampler bypass all that?)

 

The reason I ask about the scsi versus ide is ide and waaaaaaaaay cheaper and you get loads more space for the money.

 

Dave

[GZsound]

The main reason I went with SCSI is because I heard the IDE drives can stop in the middle of streaming audio and recalibrate. Everybody kept talking about buying AV drives. I stepped up and bought a SCSI II controller card and now use SCSI II drives and CD burners. Easy to add additional drives and easy to backup on. They seem to be plenty fast (I use IBM 10 Gig SCSI II drives) and very robust.

 

I know a lot of the new hard disk recorders use cheaper IDE drives so they must work fine. For me I would go SCSI.

 

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

Mark G.

[Duhduh]

Quantity vs. Quality.

 

IDE drives certainly are cheap. And they're getting bigger, faster, and cheaper everyday.

 

But, SCSI drives are much more reliable, less errors, pretty darn fast, daisy-chainable, and the connection is much faster.

[Master Zap]

I popped in a IDE (ATA/66) in my otherwise SCSI-oriented system and the IDE drive ran rings around the SCSI stuff w. sutained read/write at some 20 megabyte per second whereas the SCSI stuff get me 4-5 Mb per sec.

 

/Z

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Master Zap:

I popped in a IDE (ATA/66) in my otherwise SCSI-oriented system and the IDE drive ran rings around the SCSI stuff w. sutained read/write at some 20 megabyte per second whereas the SCSI stuff get me 4-5 Mb per sec.

 

/Z

 

Not to be a skeptic...but I find that hard to believe...maybe there is more to the picture that you are not mentioning???

 

I just read some serious tests/reviews of IDE vs SCSI drives and there were situations where the newest ATAs came "close" to the SCSI drive performance...but it never passed it. This has also been the general industry concensus...so how are you coming up with a totaly reversed result???

 

Yes...if they are that close in performance people might opt for the less expensive/huge ATA drives...but this is the first I've heard of someone actually outperforming a SCSI with an ATA. What kind of tests are you doing and are they exactly the same setup/test for both types of drives?

 

 

 

This message has been edited by miroslav on 05-15-2001 at 10:24 AM

[KikkyMonk]

Also I dont think that the s6000 has the capability to use ATA cards so im going to have to take that into account to..

 

Dave

[Anderton]

There are different flavors of SCSI - SCSI I, SCSI II, ultra-wide, blah blah blah.

 

Having run both SCSI and EIDE drives, I'd say go for a good UltraATA IDE drive. They're fast, cheap, and plentiful. I use IDE drives in my music-only computer and they run just fine. Also my CD burner is IDE. SCSI has a very slight edge, but at this point, the IDE drives of today run rings around the SCSI drives of not that long ago.

[masternfool]

I have 2 puters one scsi and other ide, I just replaced the ide drive with a 7200rpm 40 gig, I have been burning cds for a month now at 8x.If mackie can do 24 tracks at once with ide then it should be plenty fast enough for mastering,in my case..I'll sell you 2 SEAGATE scsi 4.3 drives if you decide to go that route ,Ipayed 500.a piece last year.

[Master Zap]

Other than the SCSI drives being some year old, they USED to be top-of-da-line SCSI-3 things. This IDE is brand spanking new. And it outperforms the SCSI hands down.

 

I use the system mainly for VIDEO editing and am using the "sustained data rate throughput" measurement device. But if you dont believe that, I can say that my Pinnacle DV500 dual-stream DV editing card works flawlessly from the IDE drive but skips and gulps off the SCSI ones.

 

/Z

[miroslav]

Ok...well...I was thinking more in terms of the newest Ultra Wide SCSI drives at 10,000 RPM and then there is even the 15,000 speed demons.

 

Just got a new system that came packaged with an 18 Gig Ultra Wide SCSI, but I too will be adding one or two of the new monster ATAs...$239 for 60 Gigs...shit, how can you beat that!!!

[Duhduh]

I guess I should of clarified...

 

SCSI drives currently out-perform IDE drives MOST of the time. But IDE drives are quickly passing SCSI. I still think SCSI drives are more reliable and last longer.

 

If you DO get IDE drives, make sure to spend a little bit extra and get a good named brand, ie; Maxtor, Seagate, Western Digital. You'll be thankful for it in the long run. I consider most cheaper IDE drives to be disposable.

[Dylan]

Check out this article for an in-depth comparison of IDE vs. SCSI: http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/1A37C1C69674D6D786256950005D2C39

 

-Dylan

 

 

This message has been edited by Dylan Walters on 05-15-2001 at 06:19 PM

[KikkyMonk]

I asked akai and they said the s6000 will support ATA-66 so rather then to convert to scsi im opting to buy an ata66 harddrive and have the computer and sampler talk using usb. I think the ata66 in the sampler will be plenty fast.

 

Dave

[demtation]

Remember that SCSI and IDE are just interfaces, or pipes, and doesn't necessarily make reference to the drives attached to them. Granted, the latest and greatest drives are reserved for the SCSI interface, but inevitably the technology will trickle down, like 7200rpm. There's no reason that a 12,000 rpm drive can't be manufactured with an IDE interface. Sure, SCSI *is* superior for technical reasons, but the general concensus in the PC trade mags seems to be that the price/performance difference is artificially generated by manufacturers who want to maintain a substantial profit margin with the percieved high-end. Just like the inane ATA/66 ATA/100 debate - Drives are only now reaching/exceeding the 33mbs sustained transfer rate defined in the original eide spec. Burst rate is irrelevant in streaming audio. I have a 45Gb IBM deskstar that benchmarks at 100+ 16/44 audio tracks using Echo's Disk reporter software using an original ATA33 mobo interface.

 

While stability and reliability are certainly important issues, today's least expensive ide drives have sustained transfer rates that easily exceed 40 tracks. Some engineers might say if you need more than 24 tracks, the song needs work.

 

Just another $.02

 

Dembones

AppleSeed Studios

[demtation]

I forgot to add that any hickups in an IDE drive's performance are usually compliments of certain Windows settings and hidden background programs that make it quicker for little Suzie to launch winamp, Joey to get 187fps in Quake XII - Murder Simulator, and the missus to open word documents. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Anyway, once you're familiar with MSCONFIG and certain system settings, hickups are a thing of the past.

 

Another $.02

 

Demtation

[KikkyMonk]

Consulting the akai web page (this hard drive is for the akai s6000 sampler) I found that my choices are rather limited. As far as scsi is concerned I have either a 500mb drive or a 4.2gig one. As far as ide goes there are 10gig ones 2 20gig ones and a 30gig one. I think for storage space Im simply going to go with the ide. After all the load time for 256megs of samples into RAM cant be all that long. I just dont want to have to delay the concert waiting for the little perverbial blue line to go from one side to the other. Also the sampler has provisions to play direct from hard disk but I think I remember it saying somewhere that is can only do one sample at a time. Not all that useful for realtime playing of samples.

 

Dave

[alphajerk]

just to clarify some mis information, there isnt any scsi3 drives out yet i dont think, there are ultra3 but not scsi3. and SCSI is faster than an ATA drive [sustained and burst] with faster seek times and larger buffers. they also last longer. however for most audio use, an ATA will work fine. if a 16/44.1 mono file is 2.5MB a MINUTE, than most drives will accomodate enough tracks per second on most decent drives.

 

ata33 [33MB/sec MAX]

ata66 [66MB/sec MAX]

ultra2 SCSI [80MB/sec MAX]

ultra160 SCSI [160MB/sec MAX] on an ultra3 controller.

 

BUT 32bit PCI buses will saturate at 60MB/sec sustained read, 30MB/sec writes

 

none of this matters concerning the application of the post but dont fool yourself thinking ATA66 or eve ATA100 is as good as SCSI ultra3. i dont care what those little "benchmark" programs say... they offer little reality.

[Paul M. Brown]

I have a G3 that came with a 6gig Quantum Fireball IDE drive, which worked great considering all the demands I put on it. However, having what they call a "revision 1" G3, I can't run a slave IDE drive due to corruption problems. (I've tried it!) I could get an internal ATA card, but I'm outta slots, and I don't feel like trying 3rd party drivers only to find they don't solve the problem. I'm using OS 8.5. Any help out there?

 

By the way, I got an Orange SCSI card and a Cheetah 18gig 10k drive which work fine (except for a few quirks).

 

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

[Dylan]

I'd disagree, Alpha. If you put a SCSI and ATA drive with similar specs side by side, I'd put my money on the ATA drive. Also, even though SCSI specs sport 80 MB + transfer rates, are there any drives capable of achieving this? I doubt it. Unless you get into the 10,000+ RPM range, then I can't find any reason of going SCSI. And unless you plan on tracking more than 24 tracks simultaneously, then any generic 7200 RPM drive should to the trick. I can't comment on the longevity of ATA vs. SCSI, but to be honest, I could care less as long as I get 2 to 3 years out of the drive. Chances are that I'll be upgrading my now measly 9 and 15 GB drives this year anyhow. You'd think that if Mackie, Alesis, and Tascam all trust IDE for their standalone workstations then it should be good enough for yer DAW.

 

-Dylan

[alphajerk]

okay, if you put an OLDER scsi drive against a BRAND NEW ATA drive, you will get the same performance. ATA does not EQUAL SCSI. plain and simple. using a dual channel, people have gotten 160mb/sec SUSTAINED reads with ultra160, ATA cant even come close.

 

BUT audio like i said doesnt require that much unless editing is heavy and then you will love the SCSI 10k [ALL I USE for audio, soon video]... ATA will work, im not saying it wont, but its NOT on the level of SCSI and probably never will be.

 

 

and why the hell is someone buying an AKAI S6000? get a gigasampler. i guess they have their reasons...

[Anderton]

I can hardly wait until all these weird spinning things with moving parts get replaced by solid state devices!!

[Dylan]

Amen!

 

Originally posted by Anderton:

I can hardly wait until all these weird spinning things with moving parts get replaced by solid state devices!!

[KikkyMonk]

Alphajerk said:

 

"and why the hell is someone buying an AKAI S6000? get a gigasampler. i guess they have their reasons... "

 

because some of us play live. Guess thats my reason.

 

Dave

[DrummerCafe]

Yeah, that's why I bought an S6000; I can use it my project studio plus use it live.

 

 

 

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

Bart Elliott

http://bartelliott.com

[KikkyMonk]

My god you have alot of stuff Bart!!

 

Dave

[alphajerk]

nice website bart.

 

so how are you all using it live? i havent turned on my sampler in over a year. i USED to trigger all my drums when tracking and get the midi information but the past many projects i havent even bothered. and all keyboard parts have been laid down live making no use of the midi tracks.

 

the only thing im using midi for are my late night smoke downs screwing around in the studio and cant beat the crap out of some drums or ternup sum guitars.

[Brian T]

FWIW, I work all day, most days with track counts between 60 and 100 tracks at 16 bits from a single Maxtor 7,200RPM ATA drive. 24 bits reduces me to the 60-80 track practical working range on a single drive. This is overdubbing and mixing work with tons of edits, comps, full track cuts to change the arrangement, etc. I never submix. Everything lives on it's own track throughout the project.

 

For the record, the same drive will do 128 tracks at 24 bits all day with no edits. Even looping short or long sections is not a problem. But that track count would not be workable from a single ATA HD in a practical overdub or mixing scenario, given edits and the inevitable fragmentation that happens in a DAW. More of just a "yeah, I can do it" sort of thing.

 

Do the math. Approx 18MB/sec is all that's required to do 128 tracks at 24 bits. The tricky part is that it has to come from 128 seperate files. But the newer generation IBMs and Maxtors can get that done without a problem.

 

My point is that I fail to see why ATA is not preferred by pretty much everybody for DAWs, especially on PCs where DMA is fully matured. Let's say SCSI can do more, though there are absolutely cases where it negatively impacts audio by dominating the PCI bus depending on the mobo and drivers. How much more than 128 tracks do you need? Especially at 3 or 4 times the price per GB?

 

Regards,

Brian T

[Brian T]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

 

ata33 [33MB/sec MAX]

ata66 [66MB/sec MAX]

ultra2 SCSI [80MB/sec MAX]

ultra160 SCSI [160MB/sec MAX] on an ultra3 controller.

 

BUT 32bit PCI buses will saturate at 60MB/sec sustained read, 30MB/sec writes

 

 

I believe the quoted specs for the PCI bus saturation are low. But let's assume they're correct for the sake of argument.

 

1. 60MB/sec = approx 450 tracks at 24/44.1 playback

2. 30MB/sec = approx 225 tracks at 24/44.1 record

 

I've found that ATA specs yield about 1/2 of the rated throughput for a DAW in the real world. As in, ATA/33 tops out at 114 tracks of 24/44.1 on my system which works out about right for a 1:2 ratio to ATA/33 specs.

 

ATA/66 mode on the same drive yields 128 tracks at 24/44.1, which is the current limit on my Paris rig. There's obvious headroom left on the HD activity light at that point. About 20%. I would estimate that's where the HD itself tops out, around 22-23MB/sec from the 128 files. I'd guess at about 150-160 tracks of 24/44.1 if I had the additional audio hardware to support it.

 

Obviously then, there's no problem accomodating more audio tracks than we really need on the PCI bus. But the far bigger problem is that if you tie up the PCI bus with HD I/O, your audio I/O which also needs the PCI bus, is screwed. Pops and clicks at best, crashing at worst. It's for that reason that PT users throttle down their SCSI cards to avoid dominating the PCI bus with the PCI based SCSI adapter.

 

Which is why using the chipset based IDE controllers is a very good idea, IMO. By virtue of integration to the chipset, all manner of potential conflicts are avoided. The HD I/O is optimized and far less likely to crowd the PCI bus when the audio cards need it.

 

Again, use whatever you like, but it would be extremely difficult to make a convincing case that SCSI is superior for a PC based DAW. Superior for other things possibly, but not for a DAW. As far as reliability, I now have 2500GB of Maxtors in removeable trays.

 

Still zero HD failures. Not too shabby.

 

Regards,

Brian T