KVR Audio

musicworld · Post by **musicworld** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:49 am

I didn't have USB 3 ports on the old computer, but it came with a USB 2 to 3 conversion cable.

Does this mean the issue can be solved with a (conversion cable) as you say ?

One thing the clerk suggested was getting a regular hard drive and buying a case for it. The advantage was it would be just as fast as your internal drive.

Not sure what you mean here, but would purchasing this case solve the issue ?

Or am i slam dunk out of options ?

jbraner · Post by **jbraner** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:56 am

musicworld,

You need USB3 ports on your computer to use USB3.

Just use your disk as USB2, and it will work fine. I don't know much about Macs, so I don't know if there's any way to get a USB 3 adapter on your Mac (does it have a pcmcia slot or something like that?) Anyway - just plug in your disk with a USB cable and see how it goes

osiris · Post by **osiris** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:20 am

The case is just to keep dust and such out of the hard drive. ESATA is the best speed rated.

jbraner · Post by **jbraner** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:22 am

ESATA is the best speed rated.

Does the Mac have an eSATA port?

musicworld · Post by **musicworld** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:30 am

Not being to familiar with this technology, but how is it that sample Libraries can be loaded in to RAM Memory ? as i thought RAM was only the space in which it gives you to work ? If thats the case could i not simply dump the Sample Library in to RAM as i have 4GB on the Macbook.

Meaning that would solve the issue of not having to place the library on to the WD External 7200rpm Drive, therefor bypassing the slow 2.0 USB connection speed.

osiris · Post by **osiris** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:32 am

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20 ... -upgrades/

Very good read here. Hope it helps.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:33 am

Why not just plug the drive in via USB 2.0, install the software, and try it? Won't hurt to try.

You'll probably find USB 2.0 performs more than well enough.

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:53 am

[DELETED]

izonin · Post by **izonin** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:57 am

Also, there is probably a setting how much of the sample should be loaded into RAM. The more KBs are loaded, the lower the access time of your HDD could be for smooth playback. The best case is where you can load the whole samples into RAM.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:01 am

izonin wrote:Also, there is probably a setting how much of the sample should be loaded into RAM. The more KBs are loaded, the lower the access time of your HDD could be for smooth playback. The best case is where you can load the whole samples into RAM.

Access time isn't the issue, exactly because as you point out, the sample heads are already in RAM.

Sustained transfer rate is the issue. Considering how many music channels you can pump through a USB 2.0 bus, I'll bet it's sufficient.

But he should just try it. No reason not to.

izonin · Post by **izonin** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:14 am

AdmiralQuality wrote:
izonin wrote:Also, there is probably a setting how much of the sample should be loaded into RAM. The more KBs are loaded, the lower the access time of your HDD could be for smooth playback. The best case is where you can load the whole samples into RAM.
Access time isn't the issue, exactly because as you point out, the sample heads are already in RAM.

Sustained transfer rate is the issue. Considering how many music channels you can pump through a USB 2.0 bus, I'll bet it's sufficient.

But he should just try it. No reason not to.

A 24-bit 96KHz sample is 4Mb/s. USB 2.0 capacity for external HDD is 480Mb/s. The math gives us 120 voices of polyphony.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:26 am

izonin wrote:
AdmiralQuality wrote:
izonin wrote:Also, there is probably a setting how much of the sample should be loaded into RAM. The more KBs are loaded, the lower the access time of your HDD could be for smooth playback. The best case is where you can load the whole samples into RAM.
Access time isn't the issue, exactly because as you point out, the sample heads are already in RAM.

Sustained transfer rate is the issue. Considering how many music channels you can pump through a USB 2.0 bus, I'll bet it's sufficient.

But he should just try it. No reason not to.
A 24-bit 96KHz sample is 4Mb/s. USB 2.0 capacity for external HDD is 480Mb/s. The math gives us 120 voices of polyphony.

Which is pretty darned good, considering we only have 10 fingers!

musicworld · Post by **musicworld** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:36 am

It's just come to mind which i should of mentioned in my original post. That all i intend to do is play the sample libraries themselves, that being the (Galaxy ll and Vintage D) and record them in GarageBand as solo piano tracks for later editing in post production. Will not be working with mass orchestral works or multiple sampled instruments to create high end scores.

I'm assuming with this approach without any heavy demands for multiple instrument streaming, there really shouldn't be a problem dumping the complete Library on to the WD 7200rpm External Drive via USB 2.O. In the hope that there shouldn't be any latency issues ?

Would this be fair to say ?

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:36 am

AdmiralQuality wrote:Access time isn't the issue, exactly because as you point out, the sample heads are already in RAM.

I disagree here. It's all about the access time. Yes, a sampler will normally load in the beginning portion of the sample into ram on first load. Once you pass that point of what's in ram, the rest has to get into ram before you run out of what's loaded into ram. If you're doing full fisted chords in rapid succession, that hard drive better be able to retrieve them before you notice a click in the audio. That's why it's always been recommended that a sample drive has a lower access time (9ms or less) and why SCSI was preferred that had 3-4ms access times.

Devon

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:44 am

DevonB wrote:
AdmiralQuality wrote:Access time isn't the issue, exactly because as you point out, the sample heads are already in RAM.
I disagree here. It's all about the access time. Yes, a sampler will normally load in the beginning portion of the sample into ram on first load. Once you pass that point of what's in ram, the rest has to get into ram before you run out of what's loaded into ram. If you're doing full fisted chords in rapid succession, that hard drive better be able to retrieve them before you notice a click in the audio. That's why it's always been recommended that a sample drive has a lower access time (9ms or less) and why SCSI was preferred that had 3-4ms access times.

Devon

Sigh. Whatever the delay is, you load enough into RAM to compensate for it.

It's sustained transfer rate that you can't compensate for. If you don't have sufficient speed you're going to fall behind in pulling what you need off of disk, regardless of how fast the access time is.

Western Digital HD For Music ???