At 7:50 AM -0700 5/20/10, Scott Fraser wrote:
>
>
><<The larger formats people are proposing involve a 50%-300% increase
>in long-term storage requirements. Aside from time and money,>>
>
>With 1 terabyte drives now commonly available under $100 I think the
>money part of the equation is working in favor of storing large bit
>depth & word length files. Time is more precious, since each cloning,
>exportation, process, etc, takes longer.
Hi Scott-
Good point about CPU processing. My G5 PCC starts choking on 6
tracks of 24/96 with plugs and automation and I have to use "freeze"
mode which is very time-consuming.
I keep copies of my excerpts and masters on hard drives, but
everything goes to DVD-R for safe keeping. I generate an average of
5GB of material per day because I'm documenting two sites 7-10 hours
per day plus portable rig recordings. I record at 16/48 in flac and
master at 24/48K in pcm. In addition to 30-40 minutes a day of
storage-related work, once a month I spend 3-5 hours setting up DVD-R
burning docs which I burn over a period of 2-4 days as I work. If I
recorded at 24/96, this work load and the materials used would truly
triple. Surround can require quite a bit more overhead than stereo.
Folks have different priorities to account for in these decisions. I
did some comparison tests 3 years ago that put me at ease then, but
I'd definitely consider changing practices if blind tests confirm
that its worthwhile. Rob D.
><< there are material-ecological consequences.>>
>
>Valid point. With large format SSD's right around the corner, in terms
>of price & capacity, are we soon to see our landfills thick with
>mechanical hard drive mechanisms? Maybe they can be melted down &
>reutilized.
>
>Scott Fraser
>
--
|