Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankHudson
A question (not a challenge, a real question)….
Why are any of the participants in the thread concerned with getting the absolute fastest hard drive throughput? I'll have to admit my recording projects run fairly low track counts of actual audio (a dozen or so tops) but I never had a problem even with mechanical hard drives on disk speed (I would use a dedicated disk for recording as was the convention at the time). Are people actually having recording errors based on inadequate disk write speed without PCI based m.2 storage of the fastest spec? Is it something else you're gaining/preventing?
|
When I bought my iMac a couple of years ago, I went with power and speed for a couple of reasons.
One, I sometimes use a good amount of vst instruments and those will test a machine at some point. Two, some plugins are very hungry. Plus, the load times for Pro Tools can be very slow. On my old machine it would take well over a minute, sometimes closer to two, before a session would load.
Two, it's a way to future-proof yourself to some degree. Yes, I can save money building a machine that meets the needs I have today, but will the same machine meet the needs I have in 6-8 years? There's no way to exactly predict the requirements of the future with any real degree of accuracy but it's a safe bet to say we'll need more power and speed rather than less power and speed.
These are lessons learned from experience. In the past I bought computers based on current needs. It was very often a move I regretted later. I changed that attitude with my last PC build. I built it a decade ago and it hasn't fallen short for me in that time. I'm in the process of replacing it now because one component on it has failed and I'm taking that as a sign.