Why is my track count (with no pops or clicks) so low?

[GrievousAngel]

Hello All,

For background:

I am running a ASUSTeK Computer INC. M4A79T Deluxe (AM3), AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHz Deneb 45nm Technology CPU, 8.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 535MHz (8-8-8-20) RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4800 video, C: 143GB SEAGATE ST3146855SS SCSI Disk Device (Pass-Thru RAID), Data HD: 1953GB Areca 1880i RAID10-V0-UData SCSI Disk Device with 4 WD Black 7200RPM + 32 Mb of cache each HD (RAID 0+1), Capture HD (real-time recording/playback) 214GB Areca 1880i 6Gb/s SASRAID0-V0-Capture SCSI Disk Device with 3 10KRPM + 8 Mb cache each HD (RAID 0), OS: W7 64 bit, LYNX AES16e 192KHz PCIe audio card + LYNX Aurora16 AES 16 channel 192KHz ADA converters+ LT-ADAT (16 48KHz channels), running PT9.0.6 w/ no additional plug-ins loaded.

I record live tracks to my RAID 0 Capture HD, then move over to my Data HD (RAID0+1). The OS runs on the ARECA as well but is configured as a Pass-through RAID. My system scores low on HD area with a 5.7, while all other areas are in the 7.x range. The ARECA 1880i 6Gb/s SAS RAID controller is a well respected mid-level hardware RAID PCIe 16bit card costing about $500 I think.

Something is limiting my HD sub-system! Maybe its in sharing the PCIe slot resources? It gets over my head real fast at this level. What do you think?

W7 set-up? PT9.0.6 setup? ARECA set-up? How do I proceed in making sure its running as efficient as it can? Is there a software utility to determine HD issues?

Thanks for your help,

William

[albee1952]

First off, RAID is not well-supported with PT(AFAIK anyway). Hardware RAID seems to offer a bit better chance than software RAID(but I am no expert on this aspect). I would start with a non-RAID setup with a system drive and a recording drive, and test that. If that gives good performance, then you have a benchmark to refer to as you work on implementing RAID. If the simple 2 drive setup is still troublesome, then you know to look at other aspects of the system(maybe hardware, maybe system tweaks, maybe roll back to 9.0 like I did).

[GrievousAngel]

RAID 0 and 0+1 are widely used in the video capture and editing, so it would seem logical for audio. BUT, I do agree that SATA3 7200/32Mb cache HDs are fast enough for huge track counts! I wonder if my ASUS M4A79T Deluxe (AM3) MOBO has issues with the PCIe slots? Maybe a PCIe sharing issue?

Anyone out there an expert on these matters?

Thanks,
William

[JMS40]

RAID is not supported and problematic with Pro Tools.
We're not making this stuff up...

[BradLyons]

Actually, RAID is NOT NOT NOT supported at all with Pro Tools. Either go with internal SATA drives or a good external Firewire Drive and you'll be more than fine.

[GrievousAngel]

Hello Brad, How are things going these days? I hope great!

Because of my engineering background, I usually tend to ask why? So, does PT actually see the RAID controller or does it look a standard HD from the applications point of view? I am not saying ya'll are wrong, just asking for some details on the topic. I always considered a RAID sub-system as 'looking like' one HD. Ya'll are saying that PT does not see RAID as a single HD? My RAID controlled is a Hardware RAID, not software or MOBO-based RAID. Would this matter?

Also, is there a way to ask PT support about such details? Who else might I ask? I also use gearsultz forums when fishing for info.

RAID results is definitely a mixed bag of opinions, no doubt. Generically speaking, for mechanical HDs RAID makes sense in that the more HD spindles rotating, the more data can be controlled, assuming the RAID controller is up to the task. BTW: I am using a ARECA 1880i 6Gb/s SAS mid-level hardware controller with dedicated cache on board.

This leads me to ask, what HD or SSD do you recommend for max PT track count, assuming all else is equal? Say, cost is not a real barrier, where should I go to consider other choices of capturing and editing music and video files? All I require is ~ 32 tracks of smooth recording, playback + editing (setting plug-ins aside), assuming my CPU is up to the task as well. I will seldom exceed 16 tracks being 'printed' at once.

Thanks for the info.

William

[BradLyons]

I'm in Atlanta now As to why? I honestly don't know----I just know it doesn't. As to high track counts---I've spent quite a few years using a VENUE DSHOW console with a Pro Tools HD system recording LARGE concerts (bascially 80-tracks live) on a pair of internal SATA drives, or even (2) Glyph firewire drives. These were concerts where I had ONE shot----never an issue.

[GrievousAngel]

BTW: How are today's world-class PT studios handling track count? What storage systems are they employing these days? Surely external 1394 is for archival use only, and not real-time capture of music and video. So it seems at today's state-of-the-art, to boil down to SATA3 HD, 15K SAS/SCSI, large SSD or maybe a expert configured RAID0 or 0+1 sub-system . . . Do you agree? Where would I go to determine what the big-boys are using? I left analog tape off of the list intentionally, as we know most top-drawer studio use 2" tape for certain tracks still when the big $$ are there. They often use PTs for bouncing, editing and the like. And, of course if requested, 1/2" tape for the final-mix and/or master copy of project. Good analog tape is a great FX (as some refer to it) no doubt. I can usually still can hear the difference between good tape and great converters. It's a great music medium, but sadly, I guess is dying due to lack of current manufacturers.

Anyways, I rambled enough. Please do reply to what top studios are using for capture medium.

Later,

William

[GrievousAngel]

Brad, I assume that was straight recording with no re-wind, scrubbing and editing. But, you are saying that a good SATA HD w/ PT can typically support 80 tracks simultaneously? I have never been able to get that track count, but to be fair I have always used Native systems. I am running PT9.0.6 on a W7 64 4 core 3.2GHz system with LYNX hardware.


Thanks,
William

[BradLyons]

Straight recording----but we're talking 2-hours of NON-STOP recording, which is way more demanding than you realize. And then in the studio when I'm editing, over-dubbing, mixing, etc I'm running the system HARD----again, with no issues. SCSI has been dead for several years now, I don't know of a single person or studio still using them.