Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
-
sirvoice
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:21 am
Post
by sirvoice » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:14 am
Hi guys,
I've looked around and found conflicting info so i'm just gunna ask.
I'm looking into getting a Samsung 840 500GB SSD 2.5" for my Mac. I want to put my OS, Live and my working and
live (performance) Live projects (with samples) on there.
Can i expect a big increase in speed, performance and loading of samples as compared to my default macpro HD 5400 rpm?\\
Cheeeeeeeers
-
Bagatell
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:33 pm
- Location: Sierra Nevada, Spain
Post
by Bagatell » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:25 am
Oh yes.
-
Fossiel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:56 am
Post
by Fossiel » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:08 am
Yes, this is the best upgrade you can make, hands down.
-
3DW
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:12 pm
Post
by 3DW » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:28 pm
massive difference. I went for SSD system drive and two 7200 drives for audio and samples. Really pleased with the results.
-
Tarekith
- Posts: 19140
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Tarekith » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:08 pm
Much, much faster.
-
Anubis
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 1:06 pm
- Location: Miami
-
Contact:
Post
by Anubis » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:12 pm
night & day
9.0.4 Suite-Samsung Chronos 7 laptop(17")-12GB RAM-Samsung 840 series SSD(250GB)-iPad2-Maschine-TouchAble-SaffirePro24-Saffire6USB-Komplete Audio 6-Axiom25-PCR300-Nocturn-LaunchPad-QuNeo-QuNexus
miTunes
-
lapieuvre
- Posts: 786
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:29 pm
Post
by lapieuvre » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:22 pm
3DW wrote:massive difference. I went for SSD system drive and two 7200 drives for audio and samples. Really pleased with the results.
You need to do the contrary: System drive on 7200RPM and SSD for audio and Samples. Once Live is loaded, it is in your RAM. the when it triggers samples thus faster HD (SSD)
MBP M1 Max 64 GB Ram, OSX 15.7.4
Live 10.1.43 Suite
Live 11.3.35
Live 12.3.6
Interface : RME Fireface UCX
-
Donnie
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:16 pm
- Location: Chicago Suburbs
-
Contact:
Post
by Donnie » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:49 pm
lapieuvre wrote:3DW wrote:massive difference. I went for SSD system drive and two 7200 drives for audio and samples. Really pleased with the results.
You need to do the contrary: System drive on 7200RPM and SSD for audio and Samples. Once Live is loaded, it is in your RAM. the when it triggers samples thus faster HD (SSD)
I guess that would be faster for loading samples, but then you are loosing out on the overall performance increase from having your OS on a SSD. Personally, if I had to choose one, id still use the SSD as the main drive. Even more so if using MP3s and the like since they will be cached on the main drive anyways.
-
Machinesworking
- Posts: 11551
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
Post
by Machinesworking » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:55 pm
Donnie wrote:lapieuvre wrote:3DW wrote:massive difference. I went for SSD system drive and two 7200 drives for audio and samples. Really pleased with the results.
You need to do the contrary: System drive on 7200RPM and SSD for audio and Samples. Once Live is loaded, it is in your RAM. the when it triggers samples thus faster HD (SSD)
I guess that would be faster for loading samples, but then you are loosing out on the overall performance increase from having your OS on a SSD. Personally, if I had to choose one, id still use the SSD as the main drive. Even more so if using MP3s and the like since they will be cached on the main drive anyways.
This entirely depends on if you use large sample sets or not. I have a 5GB Live Set that has HUGE Kontakt pianos in it, this isn't something I would want on a HD, SSD load in 2 seconds compared to 15-45 seconds for HD.
-
Donnie
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:16 pm
- Location: Chicago Suburbs
-
Contact:
Post
by Donnie » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:18 pm
Sure, which is why I put those type of libraries on my main drive. Plenty of room with a 512gb SSD. Not like my sample and MP3 libraries that are always growing, those go on the secondary. But that's just me, I could see someone with more extensive storage demands having issues with that. Either way, the performance and stability increases combined with ridiculous boot up times are not worth the sacrifice imo.
-
tintala
- Posts: 480
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:37 pm
Post
by tintala » Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:27 pm
oh yes mosss definatley once you go ssd , you'll want is for everything, backups, external backups, main drive.. etc.. way way faster.. as it uses flash technology and does not have be spun to be read.. less moving parts to break down... Once you put all of your apps on it you'l wish you had more space.
-
swishniak
- Posts: 1134
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:25 am
- Location: Berlin
Post
by swishniak » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:16 pm
unfortunately i have to say i had a bad experience with that drive - i put a samsung 840 500gb in my macbook pro and it died after a couple months (on the plane on the way to a gig of course).
i had seen some other bad reviews on amazon from other mac peoples who had a similar (bad) experience with the drive, but i ignored them . i would say maybe just go with another drive to be sure.
but goddamn it was fast.
-
fishmonkey
- Posts: 4479
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:50 am
Post
by fishmonkey » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:32 pm
totally worth it for the speed increase, however don't believe the hype that SSDs are naturally more robust because they have no moving parts.
having no moving parts, they are probably more robust to physical shocks, however in other ways they are more delicate than a good hard drive.
the scary thing about SSDs is when they malfunction, they tend to just fail suddenly and silently, with no warning.
-
sirvoice
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:21 am
Post
by sirvoice » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:52 am
Any thoughts on this guys?
I was thinking of keeping my samples ON the SSD, as that's the point. Faster loading of (sample heavy) sets and faster running.