19 Mar
2003
19 Mar
'03
12:23 a.m.
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 18:48, Scott Thomason wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:10:51 -0500
Chris <grooveman(a)comcast.net> wrote:
I don't. I'm completely 1394 based in both Windows and Linux for my
audio drives. It's way cheaper than SCSI, it more quiet than EIDE (in a
case and located in the closet at the end of a cable like SCSI), I Can
add more storage in a minute like SCSI, and it puts the drive power
supply outside the PC thus reducing load on the main box.
I certainly think EIDE drives are basically fast enough today for
smaller systems, and with 1394 drive kits, you can take an EIDE drive
and make it 1394 in a matter of minutes should you ever want to.
1394 is the lowest raw-throughput performance of all 3, but overall I
find it works very well for me. (FYI - I have not done enough Linux
based recording to tell people to ONLY go this way, but I Can say that
about 1394 under Windows.)
Mark
I am looking into building a new machine, and I
want to do some
home-studio recording with it. I was hoping that some of you could
lend some of your expert advice.
It sounds like SCSI is pretty-much a must in these situations, true?
So in other words, nobody, myself included, thinks SCSI is necessary for this type of
workstation nowadays.
---scott