Storage media sizes exploding
in [Audio Recording]
|
Prev: Acoustic memory
Next: How to tell "true" wave files
From: geoff on 6 May 2008 18:51 Mike Rivers wrote: > geoff wrote: > >> You don't need to lose the data. The drives are so cheap you get a >> second one and mirror the data ! > > That's part of the annoyance. I have to get the second drive, connect > it, transfer the data, label it, then store it, and wonder if the > rumors that a drive that's not been run for a couple of years won't > start up because lubricants have gone sticky. I haven't heard that > story for years, but one never nows. > Plugging in a HDD harder that spooling up a tape ? Naa. Set up your XP (or whatever) to mirror the drive. Nothing more required. Or you get a USB2 one, plug it in, and push a button - done ! > I just put tape on the shelf and it plays 50 years later - maybe not > as good as new, but at least it plays and I can find it easily. I've got tapes only 15 years olds that I can't find .... geoff
From: Mike Rivers on 6 May 2008 19:17 geoff wrote: > Plugging in a HDD harder that spooling up a tape ? You're joking of course? If it's on the shelf, sure it is. Unless it's in one of those plug-and-play USB or Fireiwre enclosures, a rather expensive proposition if you have a big pile of disk drives. > Naa. Set up your XP (or whatever) to mirror the drive. Nothing more > required. To what? Another drive? And then what do you do when that mirrored drive fills up? I don't keep copies of every tape that I have on the shelf. Why should I have to do that with disk drives, which substitute for the tape? Of course the answer is that they have different failure modes, and it's easier to lose your material entirely if it's on disk rather than just have it degraded, perhaps only in spots, on tape. Managing storage on disk drives is an entirely different proposition, and one that replaces reliability and predictable degradation with redundancy to mitigate complete loss. > I've got tapes only 15 years olds that I can't find .... And I have disk drive that are 5 years old that I can't figure out what's really on them because there's no leader I can write on. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers (mriv...(a)d-and-d.com)
From: Soundhaspriority on 6 May 2008 19:59 "Arny Krueger" <arnyk(a)hotpop.com> wrote in message news:TfGdncvodPLqPb3VnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:UomdnRvCc-0G7L3VnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d(a)giganews.com >> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk(a)hotpop.com> wrote in message >> news:o96dnVBO1fjOor3VnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >>> "Romeo Rondeau" <eveyone(a)ease.com> wrote in message >>> news:KkPTj.2370$3O7.1254(a)newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >>> >>>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for >>>> convenience. >>> >>> What you get with at least the larger iPods is an audio >>> playback device whose electrical output is about as >>> clean as a CD player, but that has a low source >>> impedance designed for driving headphones. If you load >>> it with uncompressed audio files, it is the functional >>> equivalent of a high quality portable CD player. >>>> If you want quality buy something that was designed for >>>> it. >>> >>> IOW, an iPod or high quality competitive product. >>> >>> Several of us enjoyed the use of the Nomad Jukebox 3, >>> which was a logical predecessor of either the iPod or >>> the Microtrack. At this point I don't think that the professional >>> utility and perhaps even the professional stature of the >>> Microtrack and competitive products are in doubt by many. >>> >>> Technically, the larger iPods are just Microtracks >>> without the extensive facilities for location recording, >>> but with a more user-friendly file system. > >> The zeitgeist manifests not in the hardware platform, >> which is decent, but in the mastering and the >> compression. > > So then this isn't about iPods or storage media, its about mastering. > >> The hardware is equivalent or better than a >> typical CD Walkman of the 90's, but the sound is not. > > Given that the hardware can be loaded with what have you, then your > statement makes no sense. > > Are you decrying customer preferences or hardware? > >> But the zeitgeist also manifests in the market share of flash >> player music, which occured with the changing role of >> music in our society. > > Do tell, what is "flash player music", and how does it differ from the > finest digital recordings ever made? > >> In the past, music was marketed as a performance. > > Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen > to. > Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen to. >> High fidelity was a privilege equivalent >> to a good seat in the hall. > > Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall. Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall. > >> That is now quite secondary. > > Speak for yourself! Speak for yourself! > >> Music is now principally a pacifier, an auxilary >> brainwave. > > For some people, probably. For the majority. > >> I would guess that most audio professionals >> hear music fewer hours of the day than the typical flash >> player addict, but we listen more intently. > > Your point? > Your point? Bob Morein (310) 237-6511
From: Richard Crowley on 6 May 2008 20:20 "Soundhaspriority" wrote ... > "Arny Krueger" wrote ... .... >> Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to >> listen to. >> > Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen > to. ...... >> Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall. > Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall. ..... >> Speak for yourself! > > Speak for yourself! ..... >> For some people, probably. > > For the majority. ..... >> Your point? >> > Your point? CHILDREN! Don't make me stop this car!
From: Romeo Rondeau on 6 May 2008 21:48
Mike Rivers wrote: > geoff wrote: > >> Plugging in a HDD harder that spooling up a tape ? > > You're joking of course? If it's on the shelf, sure it is. Unless it's > in one of those plug-and-play USB or Fireiwre enclosures, a rather > expensive proposition if you have a big pile of disk drives. What have you been smoking, Mike? Are you stating that analog tape is cheaper than hard drive storage? Gimmie a break :-) > >> Naa. Set up your XP (or whatever) to mirror the drive. Nothing more >> required. > > To what? Another drive? And then what do you do when that mirrored drive > fills up? I don't keep copies of every tape that I have on the shelf. > Why should I have to do that with disk drives, which substitute for the > tape? Of course the answer is that they have different failure modes, > and it's easier to lose your material entirely if it's on disk rather > than just have it degraded, perhaps only in spots, on tape. Managing > storage on disk drives is an entirely different proposition, and one > that replaces reliability and predictable degradation with redundancy to > mitigate complete loss. Everything's a trade-off, Mike. > >> I've got tapes only 15 years olds that I can't find .... > > And I have disk drive that are 5 years old that I can't figure out > what's really on them because there's no leader I can write on. You can put a label on the front, if you didn't do that, it's your fault. |