naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: compactflash speed

Subject: Re: compactflash speed
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:52:23 -0500
oryoki2000 wrote:
> I completed a little research about how the speed
> of Compactflash memory cards will affect nature
> recording.=20

<snip>

> At sustained throughput of 5MB/second (pretty much the
> maximum that USB 1.1 can provide), it will take about 200
> seconds (3.33 minutes) to copy the contents a 1GB
> card from CompactFlash to your computer hard disc.
> Using a USB 2.0, Firewire, or ATAPI compactflash reader
> will copy the files somewhat more quickly.

And then you will get to do what I do WHILE copying, make the first
editorial decisions about the raw recording. In other words, that's 3.3
minutes wasted. A increased time above my system which transfers at 1X
while I'm listening to the track and deciding what to do with it. It's
also when I name the files, something you will do later if bulk
transferring. Generally also verifying the species I listed in my field
notes to see if they actually are recorded too. I only tranfer
recordings when I'm ready to work on them. The transfer is part of the
editing for me. By the time I've transferred the track, it's got it's
permanent catalog name, my field notes now include notes on the quality
of the recording, and I've trimmed it to what I want to keep and
standardized the level. It's also organized in proper desktop folders,
and often already a CD output file set up. Bulk transfers would be a
very big time waster for me.

One of the effects I'm expecting to see is recordings put out that have
hardly been listened to or checked. One only has to look at what happens
with people exchanging mp3 stuff by the gig to see this happening
already. The time used in quality computer processing audio is almost
entirely listening time. Impatient people will shortchange this,
lowering the quality of the output. Blind transfers encourage this.
Quality sound is not about throughput.

I hope the birds start singing at 24X soon. Clearly they have to be
redesigned to meet expectations. We can up their speed to 40X next year.
Just think how much field recording time that will save. Maybe next we
can get them to sing in ideal sync with the clocks on our digital
recorders. Or maybe sing in digital.

I think I will continue to record at 1X. Because I don't think I have a
right to demand the animals change, I consider it a privilege to be
allowed to listen in. I like taking my time to listen. My nature
recording won't change even if it's done with solid state memory. It's
done carefully with lots of listening. That's a large part of the
enjoyment of doing this.

Walt





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU