SCSI WORTH THE EXPENSE??????

Howdy everyone, I'm seriously considering making the upgrade to an AMD from my piece of S*** P4 right now, and have a question about hard drives. I know that traditionally SCSI drives have always been faster that ATA drives, but after I read the specs Allen posted about his sub $900 system I'm wondering wether it's actually worth the extra expense of springing for scuzzy drives over ATA drives.

As far as I know, for the amount of info transfer that PTLE uses, SCSI is not going to really make much of a difference. If you were working on a TDM or HD system with 128 tracks of audio, then it would most likely improve performance.

I agree, for LE with a 32 track limit a new IDE drive should be fine. Its only when you are dealing with 48+ tracks, that scsi will be a valuable investment.

Short answer................NO!

here's the skinny, without the tech crap, if you're at all interested. it is entirely possible to record 64 tracks of 24bit/48k audio on a beige power mac G3 233 fitted with an 80GB seagate barracuda IV. it is also possible to do so on a PII 300 or even a celeron 233. the only real benefits gained by the use of SCSI hard drives are the ability to play sessions with very high edit density (not normally an issue with 32 tracks), portability and compatibility with a wide range of professional setups, open ended recording begins considerably faster and, provided the system is correctly configured, greater CPU headroom. these are considerable advantages over ATA hard drives in certain circumstances but probably not worth the added expenditure in most situations.

The new WD ATA drives with large (8mb) cache actually outperform SCSI. Go internal.