On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:39:06 +0100 "Maurits van de Kamp" <maurits@bassment.nu> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:48:33 -0000, Noble Gowing wrote > > Freezing is pretty poorly implemented, as far as really helping you > > make the most of your hard drive(s). > > I see a slight misconception in your wishlist: Freezing isn't meant at all to > help your hard drives. It's meant to help your CPU. It's obvious that a frozen > track will always require more disc access than an unfrozen track, since the > point of freezing is to read all data (in 32 bit float) from disc rather than > calculate it. Therefore if you freeze all your tracks, your harddisk is bound > to "crap out". You should only freeze tracks that have a lot of CPU-heavy plugins. To reduce disk load, it would be nice to freeze folders, where all the folder's tracks are frozen into one file. Of course, then you wouldn't be able to mute those tracks independently without rebuilding the freeze file. But it still could be pretty useful for rather completed sub-arrangements, while editing other parts of the song. But then, you can always bounce a couple of tracks manually into a common audio file, and then mute the tracks to reduce CPU and disk load. Christian