Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sepulchra

744T and SSD

Recommended Posts

I tried searching the forums but no luck. I just heard on the twitter that SSDs actually consume more power on the 744T: "no significant performance gain for increased power consumption."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No moving motors. I was told there is no power difference between using a normal mechanical hard drive and an SSD on either the 744 or the 788. With a complex computer (like a laptop), you will boot a lot faster and certain programs will launch faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know for sure if this applies to the 744T, but I'd guess it mostly does:

 

 

====

http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/recorders/ssd-current-draw/

 

 

788T and 788T-SSD Power Consumption Comparison

There are many advantages to recording to solid-state hard drives (SSD), including improved mechanical robustness, faster transfer speeds, and silent operation. Additionally, the 788T-SSD has 96 GB of additional on-board of storage space versus the 788T. Regarding power consumption, the power consumption (and therefore run time) between the spinning hard drive in the hard drive-equipped 788T and the SSD in the 788T-SSD is nearly identical.

====

Click the link for details on the test results and some other useful info...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received this response from Casey at Sound Devices:

 

We have seen a number of these drives used in our 788T without issues. We do not install SSD's in the lower 7-Series units. We had mixed results during our testing with SSD's and I have had similar reports from our customers. In some cases we have seen issues formatting the drive or audible artifacts in the recording.

Casey Luft
Sound Devices, LLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reviving an old thread for a new (but quite related) question.

So I read this SD tech note from four years ago:

Replacing the Internal Hard Drive in 722 and 744T Recorders

https://www.sounddevices.com/tech-notes/replacing-the-internal-hard-drive-in-722-and-744t-recorders

Key line for me:

"Units produced before May 2009 used a parallel ATA (PATA/ IDE) interface and hard drive. The accessory product XL-SATA enables installation of SATA drives in these units."

I recall someone here (probably Phil) saying he had mixed/negative experiences using some PATA-SATA adapter, but I don't recall if he was using SD's adapter. And I see the note from SD Casey up above in post #10 of this thread.

So my four questions:

1) Have people in general had good luck with SSDs in their 744T recorders? (In my small world, the answer is, "yes." But I don't want to be too parochial).

2) Have people here had good or bad luck using PATA-SATA adapters to fit SATA SSDs into their earlier-run 744T recorders? If good, what model adapter?

3) What's a good source for PATA SSDs? Usual suspects (NewEgg, Amazon, etc)? NOS on eBay?

4) Any particular models/brands that have or haven't worked?

Thanks a bunch! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly related, but here's an experience I've had with my 744t and a internal CF reader. Like has been said before, power draw is super minimal. I haven't noticed any difference really. What I did notice is that the machine boots up faster. Then one day I decided to use my Qrx's digital out set to 96k...ontop of running the two analog lines for a total of 4 tracks. The internal CF reader was not able to keep up with data rates and stopped completely. The CF in the CF card slot came through however. I guess the interface between the old style hard drive to CF is the weak link here. I wonder if the SSD adapter has more throughoutput? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is true, I bought two official SD SATA adapter rigs for my 2 744s and ended up removing them and going back to the old PATA drives until they died, and then replaced them with identical NOS PATA drives.  My units did not "take to" the SATA adapters in either case: one was installed by SD and the other by me.  In my non-scientific tests the power consumption went up noticeably, the RF spray was worse and the machine did a few other things it hadn't done before re: incomplete boots, drive not being found etc..  I decided to keep the pair as-was, why mess with success?  Since the SATA thing was an expensive wash for me (anyone want to buy a nearly-new SD SATA adapter?) I didn't pay any attention to the SSD thing (or the mods using a CF card as an internal drive).  I figure that SD did really exhaustive testing with the original design, which is why it works so well; later drive types wouldn't have been considered in their design process.  I don't need faster (the PATAs are fine @ 4 track 96k I can tell you), I don't need bigger (not taking the machine trekking--I download every day), so why mess with success?  YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did buy an SD SATA adapter and tried to pair it with an SSD--a top of the line Sandisk.  The power to the drive kept cutting out.  I removed the SSD and replaced it with a 320 GB spinner and it has worked fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those looking to upgrade to SSD, I can highly recommend the Samsung 850 Evo series.

After my 250GB Sata harddisk suddenly broke down, I replaced it with the 250GB 850 Evo. I don't need a disk that large but the 250GB has lower power consumption than the 120GB model.

It has been running smooth for the last 4 months. The biggest benefit was the much lower RF spray compared to the regular drive (about 2 pixels lower on my Lectro scan in the bag)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

Are you using this drive in a 744T with the Sound Devices SATA adapter kit?   And the Samsung SSD you mention has lower power draw than the 250 GB disk you removed?

My 744T already shipped with the SATA adapter since it's a newer one (built in 2012).

The old disk was a Seagate Momentus Thin 250GB with a power consumption of 0.45A at 5V = 2.25W. The Samsung 850 Evo 250GB draws 2.2W to 2.4W, so no difference to the old one.

Apparently the numbers were wrong on my local dealers website when I bought the SSD. According to the samsung website the 120GB model draws marginally less power (2.1-2.4W).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these numbers look odd to me... according to anandtech, an EVO 850 should draw about 0.03W when idle and 1.8W when on full throttle. a seagate HDD about 0.8W when idle and 2.4W under load, so 0.8W to 0.6W difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review/10

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3734/seagates-momentus-xt-review-finally-a-good-hybrid-hdd/7

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chrismedr said:

these numbers look odd to me... according to anandtech, an EVO 850 should draw about 0.03W when idle and 1.8W when on full throttle. a seagate HDD about 0.8W when idle and 2.4W under load, so 0.8W to 0.6W difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review/10

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3734/seagates-momentus-xt-review-finally-a-good-hybrid-hdd/7

 

I tool the numbers from the samsung website (http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/consumer/850evo.html)

 

I just wanted to point out that from my personal experience, there is no real difference in power consumption between HDD and SDD, as stated on the Sound Devices FAQ for the 788T regarding this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kosty said:

I just wanted to point out that from my personal experience, there is no real difference in power consumption between HDD and SDD, as stated on the Sound Devices FAQ for the 788T regarding this topic.

understood, since the 788T has a high power consumption anyway, I guess half a watt more or less won't be noticeable.

just found this:

https://www.sounddevices.com/tech-notes/788t-and-788t-ssd-power-consumption-comparison

so in real word it seem seems to be about 0.25W lower on idle and 0.8W higher on recording (with 2009 tech, both magnetic drives and SSDs have come down in power consumption quite a bit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×