Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] New Machine
From: Brian Redfern (bredfern_AT_calarts.edu)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 10:22:16 EET
Yup, but you can get decent recording on linux even with just one drive if
you have the right combo of hardware. I was using an Audiophile card for
recording, but had some pci conflicts that caused random pops in
recording, but when I switched to the quattro on usb I'm now getting clean
recordings. I'll have to give 1394 a try under linux, I've got a firewire
card, but have only used it for digitizing video.
On 18 Mar 2003, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 18:48, Scott Thomason wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:10:51 -0500
> > Chris <grooveman_AT_comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 10:24:58 EET