Author: Shiuming Lai (cache-ink1-cro-hsi.cableinet.co.uk)
Date: 10-19-2002 21:43
MAC wrote:
-------------------------------
>But if you need more disk space I would
>recommend a SCSI drive before IDE!
Getting a suitable SCSI drive for a Falcon will be very difficult these days, the last ones I know of were a batch of 9 GB IBM drives, which worked great with CAF. Capacity-wise, IDE is now generally way ahead of SCSI, especially at the same price.
>SCSI is MUCH faster than IDE,
Not on the Falcon, especially bus-accelerated ones. Falcon SCSI is 8-bit wide whereas its IDE is 16-bit. On a CT2 accelerated Falcon using a fast IDE drive as the source, the maximum practical CD writing speed over SCSI is 6x, this is the limit of the SCSI, not the rest of the system.
If you are talking about SCSI vs the internal 2.5" then you are absolutely correct.
>and is >required
>if you are going to use features like
>HD-recording with for example Cubase.
Cubase Audio is the only HD recorder on the Falcon I know of that requires SCSI, and that's only because it was programmed so. Every other program I've used works great with IDE, and SoundPool even recommends IDE over SCSI.
CAF is a very old program and at the time of its release, the 2.5" internal IDEs of the Falcon were certainly not suitable for HD recording, and only SCSI AV-rated drives with continuous thermal calibration were suitable for 8-track recording. Steinberg either didn't foresee people using much faster 3.5" IDE drives or wanted to guarantee performance by restricting CAF to SCSI (otherwise lots of people would be complaining that CAF was no good because it wouldn't work with the internal 2.5" hard disk - that may sound ludicrous but I've seen such ignorance of technology from so-called professionals many times).
>(Pity Cubase donīt work under MagIC tho!!)
Why would you want to do this anyway?
|
