Wild Sanctuary wrote:
> The data collection process has been effortless and has gone pretty
> much without a hitch. Immediately, when we returned to the lab, all
> the data was transferred to both hard disk and backed up onto CDRs
> encoded in stereo with no signal processing and calibrated to the
> original input levels at which the data were recorded.
Since I now have a MKH 30 and a MKH 80, I can do M/S, and have been
trying to decide if I archive the real original from the two mics or the
encoded stereo. Any thoughts on this subject one way or the other?
I only recently upped my HD space enough to hold much of my collection.
Mine is archived in two forms: Aiff files on optical disks, and audio CD
format on CD-R's. I keep working copies of current stuff on HD as well.
At the time
> late last summer when we had to commit to our standardized gear, MDs
> were not especially problem-free (incl. the Portadisc) and I am a bit
> leary of the compression issue, particularly when we have to crunch
> numbers to support our field findings sometime later this summer for
> publication.
The funny thing is I'm recording with a Portadisc out of the first
shipment to the US, with it's original software. Problem free. The
problems seem to have been erratic and relatively rare. I'm still
planning on having HHb upgrade my software, probably this fall, so have
been watching everyone's experiences closely.
As far as the compression vs number crunching, I have no idea, it's
something that can probably be found only by trying it. Probably depends
on just what you are trying to crunch. For instance the sample by sample
data will differ, though a fft derived from it does not as far as I can
tell. I do know that MD is subject to the same problem as moving any
digital audio, namely keeping clock sync organized. A lot of the
problems blamed on ATRAC look a lot more like that problem. But, you are
already recording digital, so I assume you have that taken care of.
I've quit trying to guess what ATRAC will damage, every time I guess, I
find it's not so, or not as I predicted. I know that when you
effectively remove 80% of the data something has to happen, it's just a
real slippery customer to pin down. Especially as that data magically
seems to reappear out the other end. And complicated by the problem of
separating the ATRAC effect from that of the surrounding electronics. I
have great admiration for the folks who invented and perfected this system.
> I have no problem upgrading and, in fact, would do just about
> anything to find alternatives to tape or hard disk drives. I just
> dont trust things that spin, or can be folded or wound. MD and solid
> state formats certainly point the way to the future, in my mind, and
> I will probably switch at some point when the dust settles as to the
> best technologies. So we're completely in agreement.
You are, in some ways at the same point I was when I went MD, for about
the same reason, media reliability. I just did not go to DAT first. I
did have the experience of using optical disks for a while before then,
and do trust them. MD, to me was just a smaller optical disk as far as
media goes. I was fully comfortable with that aspect and in fact it was
that that got me to try MD.
My problem with solid state is that I know it depends on electric
charges for storage. And recovery from even one damaged bit is hard. So,
I have no comfort zone built up about it.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|