Hey guys,
just wanted to confirm, what I read in other online forums to make sure I got it right:
The recommended setup for DAWs is:
1st SSD = OS + Programs (Cubase) + VSTs + Cubase Project files
2nd SSD = Audio Only
3rd HDD = Additional Samples like Komplete, Stylus RMX comtent …
I usually only work with Vocal audio files, is it really worth it to use an extra ssd just for vocals and bounces?
Best, Chris
I don’t do deep, but my ideal set up is:
SSD Windows and Cubase
SSD Cubase project folders
SSD Additional samples (that could get expensive)
TBH even all HHD is fine really at 7000+ rev per minute
SSD’s are more reliable these days, I like my Samsung - quality. The C drive as a SSD is a real shotin the arm for both Windows and Cubase exe
Each of your Cubase projects should go in their own individual folder on the 2nd drive, and Cubase automatically sticks the audio files for a project in the Audio subfolder of the project folder.
Yes think Project folder not Audio Folder. Check out the Audio Pool it does soem real clever things without you even saying nicely please.
Z
Thanks
Now I read that it is better to use a regular HDD for audio and projects, because of reliability.
Is that true?
No reliability problems with SSDs for a few years.
To what reliability issues are you specifically referring?
Well DAW Plus wrote in a forum, that writing audio might be unreliable on SSDs, maybe they were referring to heavy track load.
Please provide a link to the post. PM me with it if you think it might contravene SBs forum rules.
Generally, SSDs trounce HDDs in every performance and reliability parameter, except for write lifecycle limitations per block, though for hobbyist use, leaving as little as 15GB space on a project drive will give you over a 100 years of use, though any (SSD or HDD) drive will likely be superseded or fail catastrophically before that.
RE the DAW maker’s posts regarding SSD reliability in the Gearslutz OWC or Samsung Evo SSD thread, they are long on opinion but sadly lacking ANY stats.
By stating:
Realtime writing to SSD, especially multitrack, is still a challenge for some SSDs
without specifically citing to which ‘some’ refers, they are effectively impuning ALL SSDs, leaving a reader with no idea as to how to tell the difference. They have done all SSD manufacturers and their readers a disservice.
Unfortunately, in a forum, too many self-professed ‘experts’ expect us to accept their opinions as fact, without any reasoning or stats to back them up. Not good enough! Don’t accept their opinions at all in that case, as you have no way of determining their veracity, except by going to someone who can back up the claims, in which case the former’s opinions re the matter are redundant.
So, still waiting on why SSDs might be unreliable for project drives, or any evidence that supports such an opinion.
I don’t expect anyone to accept what I write as fact, but as something that they could possibly take into consideration, so I expect them to take responsibility for their own decisions. Many of my opinions are based on reasoning from first principles rather than direct experience, so I expect that if any are incorrect, the errors will be pointed out with other reasoning and/or facts.
I use SSD’s as OS and audio drives. The advantage over mechanical drives are fairly obvious. But I have 8+ terabytes of samples, so it would get outrageously expensive if I stored them all on SSD’s. And for what gain? Loading the samples a tad faster? So totally NOT worth it…
Twice as fast. But it is doing it at a non-critical time.
Of course, some libraries, like the EastWest Hollywood Platinum series, are recommended to be on SSDs.
If you use them on stage and you need to constantly load new patches, yeah, of course. In the studio, however, it doesn’t make much difference if something loads in 1 minute rather than 30 seconds, especially considering my system auto-loads all orchestral templates on startup, before I begin working. And from then on until the time I shut everything off when I’m done, I rarely need to load anything else. Also, I use one master and two slaves on a VEP network, so the computers are all loading at the same time, therefore considerably reducing load times. It really wouldn’t make any difference to me if they loaded in half of the time. Not when I’d have to buy 9 terabyte-worth of SSD’s…
Besides, if everything loaded faster, I would have less time for breakfast in the morning… 
Yes but I need 2 TB SSD for this 
Only a recommendation!
And then, only for HSD, though if all are on the one drive, an SSD is almost a must.
However, the Diamond libraries only total 310 (HS) + 150 (HW) + 150 (HB) = 610GB, so why would you need 2TB?
My total EW folder size is : 565 GB
and another 300 GB for other.
It seems they run at it’s best at 50% full.
I am seriously thinking about getting just 1TB and see how it goes. The smaller programs can stay on HD for now.
Thanks for the help anyway !!
Not SSDs. You can run samples (read only) at as close to full as you want. If total transfer time is a limitation, you are better off using multiple smaller SSDs, using hard links between them to split heavy use libraries.
With HDDs, if you only need half the drive for your samples, you are better off formatting the first partition just a little bigger than that required for the libraries.
This is called ‘short-stroking’ because it limits the maximum head travel time, which can allow lower latencies. Of course, what is in the other partition(s) on the drive MUST NOT be used with the samples, otherwise it forces a minimum head travel time.
Well, if you want the highest loading speeds with conventional drives, the best solution is still a RAID system. Still costs way less than SSD per gigabyte, while approaching that kind of speed.
You can even have what’s called “hybrid RAID”, which is SSD as primary and mechanical drive as secondary.
My suggestion is likely to be more helpful for actually streaming the samples.
Why do you always have the need to put down people with different opinions? And btw, this isn’t a competition.
2tb SSD = $ 1,400 (2x Samsung 850)
2tb RAID = $ 350
Enough said…