[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb wrote:
FOlks,

Okay, things are a bit different from my day when we charged you rent on the reel for a period of time if you wanted the
material retained. Many regular customers just purchased
their own reel of 2" or multiple reels.

OUr current policy is that we hold original media we
recorded the audio on for 30 days. IF for some reason the
client can't use the delivered media, lost or destroyed
within that time we'll replace it. OF course, a surcharge
for the FEdex or UPS shipment etc.

But, how do you all deal with long term storage issues and
passing costs along to clients that wish for you to retain
the material?

It goes into the storage unit after the specified time period. Maybe
it gets wiped, maybe it doesn't.

If someone calls me ten years down the road and reminds me that I recorded
this great concert of theirs, and I still have the tapes, then I'll send
them the tapes (or more likely a dub) for whatever media and shipping
cost.

If they call me and I don't have it (which is much more likely), then
they don't get it.

Some places charge an extra fee for that kind of thing. While I usually
never pass up an opportunity to charge somebody for something, I figure
it's a reasonable service to provide.

Imho it's a pita, and if the client can't figure out within
30 days of the sesion what he wants to do with the material
his loss, or he/she needs to pay me for retaining the
original and having it available.

If it happens to get retained, I won't charge. The chances that it will
be retained, though, vary. And it's not guaranteed, especially if it
was a festival gig done on 1" because I reuse a lot of that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

FOlks,

Okay, things are a bit different from my day when we charged you rent on the reel for a period of time if you wanted the
material retained. Many regular customers just purchased
their own reel of 2" or multiple reels.

OUr current policy is that we hold original media we
recorded the audio on for 30 days. IF for some reason the
client can't use the delivered media, lost or destroyed
within that time we'll replace it. OF course, a surcharge
for the FEdex or UPS shipment etc.

But, how do you all deal with long term storage issues and
passing costs along to clients that wish for you to retain
the material?

Imho it's a pita, and if the client can't figure out within
30 days of the sesion what he wants to do with the material
his loss, or he/she needs to pay me for retaining the
original and having it available.

HOw are others dealing with such issues in this business?




Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Webb wrote:

But, how do you all deal with long term storage issues and
passing costs along to clients that wish for you to retain
the material?

Why not just charge them for a disk drive? Let the client take it home
with him and bring it back if he wants to do more work with the project?
Those USB drives cost less than a reel of 2" tape, and as long as you
don't work it too hard (copy the files to your "working" drive while you're
actually working) it should last as long as a reel of tape.

I see no reason why the client shouldn't pay for media that you can't
use for anything else. (and I don't mean to extend this to toilet paper
in the studio can)

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Wed 2037-Sep-09 21:14, Scott Dorsey writes:
Okay, things are a bit different from my day when we charged you rent on the
reel for a period of time if you wanted the
material retained. Many regular customers just purchased
their own reel of 2" or multiple reels.
snip
But, how do you all deal with long term storage issues and
passing costs along to clients that wish for you to retain
the material?

It goes into the storage unit after the specified time period.
Maybe it gets wiped, maybe it doesn't.

Yah can understand that. I"m still cycling through older
ide drives though for multi-track sessions at present
though. My thoughts are moving this media around cataloging etc. is a pita, and 30 to 90 days is all I should be
expected to actually retain it, unless additional bucks
change hands.

If someone calls me ten years down the road and reminds me that I
recorded this great concert of theirs, and I still have the tapes,
then I'll send them the tapes (or more likely a dub) for whatever
media and shipping cost.

Reasonable. IT's not like I"m trying ot kill somebody on
the money part of this.

Some places charge an extra fee for that kind of thing. While I
usually never pass up an opportunity to charge somebody for
something, I figure it's a reasonable service to provide.

REasonable, but folks' expectations were a bit different
when they were coming to a studio and utilizing 1" or 2"
tape.
The real serious folks bought their own reels I found. The
rest knew that after a couple weeks the multi-track session
was gone.

Imho it's a pita, and if the client can't figure out within
30 days of the sesion what he wants to do with the material
his loss, or he/she needs to pay me for retaining the
original and having it available.

If it happens to get retained, I won't charge. The chances that it
will be retained, though, vary. And it's not guaranteed, especially
if it was a festival gig done on 1" because I reuse a lot of that.
Can see where that is. AS I note some folks have a bit
different expectations these days though. They figure media is cheap, etc. etc.

But, moving it to longterm storage media takes a bit of
time, labelling, storage, etc. Just had a guy express
surprise that I"d only gurantee that it would be hanging
around for 30 days in this day and age.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
#! rnews 2255
Path: ftn!116-901!NOT-FOR-MAIL
From: R

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb wrote:
But, moving it to longterm storage media takes a bit of
time, labelling, storage, etc. Just had a guy express
surprise that I"d only gurantee that it would be hanging
around for 30 days in this day and age.

They should look at some of the other contracts out there.

My favorite is an old one from W.A. Palmer film labs. If you look at it
carefully, it basically says that their facility won't guarantee to do anything
at all, and that they aren't responsible for anything that should happen to
anything you entrust to them at any time. It also says the customer has to
pay them anything they ask for any reason at all. It's really a work of art.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Wecan do it]

"Richard Webb"
wrote in
message ...
FOlks,

Okay, things are a bit different from my day when we charged
you rent on the reel for a period of time if you wanted the
material retained. Many regular customers just purchased
their own reel of 2" or multiple reels.

OUr current policy is that we hold original media we
recorded the audio on for 30 days. IF for some reason the
client can't use the delivered media, lost or destroyed
within that time we'll replace it. OF course, a surcharge
for the FEdex or UPS shipment etc.

But, how do you all deal with long term storage issues and
passing costs along to clients that wish for you to retain
the material?

Imho it's a pita, and if the client can't figure out within
30 days of the sesion what he wants to do with the material
his loss, or he/she needs to pay me for retaining the
original and having it available.

HOw are others dealing with such issues in this business?




Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly
his own.


I tell people they can have their sessions in my DAW format
for free if they bring their USB drives when they pick up the
master and smoke me out while the files transfer.

If they want the files in a more portable format, perhaps
individual equal size synchronized wav files per tracks on a
per song basis, I charge them the hourly rate to prep and put
them on DVD's.

If they do not collect the project or pay for the sync'd wavs
when we are done I tell them I will delete the source material
and maybe just keep the master as soon as I need the room on
my work drive. It seems that running 24 tracks at 44.1/16 I
rack up about 30 gigs in a day.

Fortunate for me I rarely want to listen to, let alone re-work
a project that I have recorded and listened to a hundred times
in mixdown. I never went back with old girlfriends either.

peace
dawg

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2037-Sep-10 09:26, Scott Dorsey writes,
But, moving it to longterm storage media takes a bit of
time, labelling, storage, etc. Just had a guy express
surprise that I'd only guarantee that it would be hanging
around for 30 days in this day and age.

They should look at some of the other contracts out there.

That's what I indicated. AS i said to MIke RIvers in
another article which seems to have not propagated, I could
move the session from the hd the original session went down
on to usb drive or cd-r disks, but then, gotta take the time to do it, take it to storage, catalogue and label, yada
yada. Imho guaranteeing to hold the original hd as is with
the client's session data for 30 days is reasonable. AFter
that, if it's still there and he needs it, he's good.
OTherwise, it's "you snooze you lose."

Especially with our business model which is capture, and not providing mix down or mastering. Maybe later when I"ve got
suitable control room space. This office/ham shack woujld
need a whole lotta treatment to be anywhere near acceptable.

My favorite is an old one from W.A. Palmer film labs. If you look
at it carefully, it basically says that their facility won't
guarantee to do anything at all, and that they aren't responsible
for anything that should happen to anything you entrust to them at
any time. It also says the customer has to pay them anything they
ask for any reason at all. It's really a work of art. --scott

I've seen contracts like that. I've seen a lot of that kind of thing in software licensing with the caveat, "this
contract may be void where you are."


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2037-Sep-10 09:32, Wecan do it writes,

Okay, things are a bit different from my day when we charged
you rent on the reel for a period of time if you wanted the
material retained. Many regular customers just purchased
their own reel of 2" or multiple reels.
But, how do you all deal with long term storage issues and
passing costs along to clients that wish for you to retain
the material?

I tell people they can have their sessions in my DAW format for
free if they bring their USB drives when they pick up the master
and smoke me out while the files transfer.

Fair enough. WE're doing hd-24 in our remote truck, don't
do mix down or anything else.
WE charge for the usb drive for their files, use hd24tools
to get them broadcast wavs and then tell 'em don't worry be
happy.

THing is, I don't want to promise to retain another usb
drive with a backup, or to retain the original drive the
session went down on indefinitely. I had enough fun with
all that pre-Katrina when I was doing more conventional
studio, projects in various stages of completion around,
etc. Since in theory either the client is taking project to his home daw or a pt control room somewhere to mix then I"m
clear out of the picture once deliverables are in his hands. But, stuff happens. Which is why I say for 30 days we'll
retain the original session drive(s) and make them
available.

If they want the files in a more portable format, perhaps
individual equal size synchronized wav files per tracks on a per
song basis, I charge them the hourly rate to prep and put them on
DVD's.

NO dvd burner here, so it would either be those files on a
usb drive or two or cd-r, which is much more labor
intensive.

If they do not collect the project or pay for the sync'd wavs when
we are done I tell them I will delete the source material and
maybe just keep the master as soon as I need the room on my work
drive. It seems that running 24 tracks at 44.1/16 I rack up about
30 gigs in a day.

Sounds about right. Which is why I dont' want to really get into the long term storage nad archival game to save a
client's bacon.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Richard Webb wrote:
FOlks,

Okay, things are a bit different from my day when we charged you rent on the reel for a period of time if you wanted the
material retained. Many regular customers just purchased
their own reel of 2" or multiple reels.

OUr current policy is that we hold original media we
recorded the audio on for 30 days. IF for some reason the
client can't use the delivered media, lost or destroyed
within that time we'll replace it. OF course, a surcharge
for the FEdex or UPS shipment etc.

But, how do you all deal with long term storage issues and
passing costs along to clients that wish for you to retain
the material?

Imho it's a pita, and if the client can't figure out within
30 days of the sesion what he wants to do with the material
his loss, or he/she needs to pay me for retaining the
original and having it available.

HOw are others dealing with such issues in this business?



I never actually had to deal with it, but my policy was gonna be
that the client either brought me a harddisk, paid me to buy one
for him ( with at-rate charges ) or (s)he took the mixes and nothing else.

A 1T USB drive at best Buy is now... $99.99 or less. I remember
tape cost for 2" being higher than that thirty years ago, and my
inflation calculator shows a factor of 2.4858 in their favor.

If you are acting as an archivist, you must charge accordingly.
Insurance, bonding, the whole banana. Persistence is not cheap.



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

--
Les Cargill

[david correia]

In article ,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

But, moving it to longterm storage media takes a bit of
time, labelling, storage, etc. Just had a guy express
surprise that I"d only gurantee that it would be hanging
around for 30 days in this day and age.

Regards,
Richard


When someone is done with a project, we burn the data to DVD's and give
it to them. We charge $25 for 2 copies of one DVD of data (4.3 gb). I
make sure to burn 2 different brands of DVD's (Sony, TDK or Taiyo Yuden)
to be on the safe side, should one prove to not be a good long term
solution. Some projects take lots of DVD's.

We usually do it on the spot while their audio CD master is being burnt
and no one complains about being charged.

We also burn a third copy and put it in our library, although we do not
tell them. About once every 9 months someone who got their DVD disks
calls us and asks if we still have a copy of their project ...

We also have lots of firewire drives where we keep stuff for a long time.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Mike Rivers]

Les Cargill wrote:

A 1T USB drive at best Buy is now... $99.99 or less. I remember
tape cost for 2" being higher than that thirty years ago, and my
inflation calculator shows a factor of 2.4858 in their favor.

Yes, a hard drive is a very economical storage medium, and you can store
so much more than you'll ever need, so most people do. Where are all the
30 GB drives that you can store an hour-long 24-track project on? Awright,
80 GB if you want 24 bit 96 kHz and room for a few alternate takes.

10 years ago the major labels still wanted a 24-track 2" analog master for
their vaults, but were willing to accept rendered equal length (or at
least all
start from time zero) WAV files. Now I guess it's whatever they get, which
is nearly always a ready-to-plug-in ProTools disk.

Are people still arguing about whether to include sufficient data to
deconstruct
and reconstruct the mix?

If you are acting as an archivist, you must charge accordingly.
Insurance, bonding, the whole banana. Persistence is not cheap.

I don't believe it should be the studio's place to be the archivist
unless he makes
that a part of his business. I still have some 2" tape for clients'
projects in a closet,
but I suspect that I'll never be asked for it. Still, if I ever move, my
conscience will
force me to track down those folks who I haven't seen in years and ask
if they
want their tape.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sat 2037-Sep-12 01:08, david correia writes:

But, moving it to longterm storage media takes a bit of
time, labelling, storage, etc. Just had a guy express
surprise that I'd only gurantee that it would be hanging
around for 30 days in this day and age.

When someone is done with a project, we burn the data to DVD's and
give it to them. We charge $25 for 2 copies of one DVD of data (4.3
gb). I make sure to burn 2 different brands of DVD's (Sony, TDK or
Taiyo Yuden) to be on the safe side, should one prove to not be a
good long term solution. Some projects take lots of DVD's.

We're a remote truck, we don't do mixdowns or mastering.
HEnce I prefer not to have to do all the hassle of moving
tracks around and then burning cd-r disks, and don't have a
dvd burner at the moment. We give the client raw multi
track data on hard drive. USing hd-24 machine for
multi-track, so we pull it into the computer after the
session, render the multitrack data as broadcast .wav files
and transfer. Burning to cd (or dvd) would be a bit labor
intensive, so we just give the client a hd with the bwav
files that he can take to the mixing facility of his choice, whether that be his pt rig in his basement or another
facility. NO control room here other than the remote truck, whose control room sounds rather good. YOu can ask Hank A.
about it, he's worked with this rig before we owned it g

I"ll retain the original drive that came from the hd-24 for
30 days in my stock for rotation, but then it needs to be
wiped and reused. IF I must retain it on a usb hd or other
media and catalogue it, etc. I think I should be compensated for that. HEnce trying to decide what's fair to the
clients, and fair to us. After all, it's mostly a clerical
function at that point. Were we doing mixdowns etc. I"d
figure longterm storage etc. as just another cost of doing
business, but if the gig is multi-track recording for us
it's usually a one off and the client will be taking the
material elsewhere. HEnce backup and archival should be his responsibility.

We usually do it on the spot while their audio CD master is being
burnt and no one complains about being charged.

Can understand that. SEe above for explanation. A bit
different business model g.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
#! rnews 937
Path: ftn!116-901!NOT-FOR-MAIL
From: Ri

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Richard Webb wrote:
On Sat 2037-Sep-12 01:08, david correia writes:

But, moving it to longterm storage media takes a bit of
time, labelling, storage, etc. Just had a guy express
surprise that I'd only gurantee that it would be hanging
around for 30 days in this day and age.

When someone is done with a project, we burn the data to DVD's and
give it to them. We charge $25 for 2 copies of one DVD of data (4.3
gb). I make sure to burn 2 different brands of DVD's (Sony, TDK or
Taiyo Yuden) to be on the safe side, should one prove to not be a
good long term solution. Some projects take lots of DVD's.

We're a remote truck, we don't do mixdowns or mastering.
HEnce I prefer not to have to do all the hassle of moving
tracks around and then burning cd-r disks, and don't have a
dvd burner at the moment. We give the client raw multi
track data on hard drive. USing hd-24 machine for
multi-track, so we pull it into the computer after the
session, render the multitrack data as broadcast .wav files
and transfer. Burning to cd (or dvd) would be a bit labor
intensive,

Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand how cut and pasting
24 files into a DVD burning application and slotting a DVD into a disc
drive is labour intensive.

Cheers

Ian

[Mike Rivers]

Ian Bell wrote:

Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand how cut and pasting
24 files into a DVD burning application and slotting a DVD into a disc
drive is labour intensive.

Maybe he doesn't have a computer in the remote truck.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2037-Sep-15 06:38, Mike Rivers writes:
Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand how cut and pasting
24 files into a DVD burning application and slotting a DVD into a disc
drive is labour intensive.

MOre to it than just burning a dvd of a couple songs. We're talking a performance here, a couple hours of material in
some cases.

Maybe he doesn't have a computer in the remote truck.

That would be true as well. Drive moves easily. Also don't have a dvd burner at the moment. WHatever format I use for
longterm storage, it has to be catalogued, moved to storage
unit, filed appropriately there, etc. etc. THen if the
client calls me back 6 months down the road, load the files
up, move to another hd which then gets to be sent via FEdEx
to the client, etc. ONe time shot, figured in the price of
the truck.

IF you don't decide you want them in six months, then I"ve
got all this stuff stored around the place, if it's
available it needs to be checked occasionally, make sure
it's still readable, etc. etc.

Current policy: We keep the original drive your recording
was laid down upon for 30 days. After that we talk about it and decide what the rate is for us to keep your project in
longterm storage. OTherwise, 31 days after your gig next
time I need a drive yours is probably going to get wiped and reused.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:

Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand how cut and
pasting 24 files into a DVD burning application and slotting a DVD
into a disc drive is labour intensive.

Maybe he doesn't have a computer in the remote truck.


But he said

"USing hd-24 machine for
multi-track, so we pull it into the computer after the
session, render the multitrack data as broadcast .wav files
and transfer. Burning to cd (or dvd) would be a bit labor
intensive, so we just give the client a hd with the bwav
files "

So he has got it in a computer and converted it into wav files, so his
choice is to dump it to a hard drive or to a DVD. Still can;t see why
the DVD is more labour intensive.

Cheers

Ian

[Richard Crowley]

"Ian Bell" wrote ...
Mike Rivers wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand how cut and pasting
24 files into a DVD burning application and slotting a DVD into a disc
drive is labour intensive.

Maybe he doesn't have a computer in the remote truck.

But he said

"USing hd-24 machine for
multi-track, so we pull it into the computer after the
session, render the multitrack data as broadcast .wav files
and transfer. Burning to cd (or dvd) would be a bit labor
intensive, so we just give the client a hd with the bwav
files "

So he has got it in a computer and converted it into wav files, so his
choice is to dump it to a hard drive or to a DVD. Still can;t see why the
DVD is more labour intensive.

The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24 produce
way larger and more files than will fit on a single DVD. When
you start making multiple discs and keeping track of which files
are on which disc, etc, it quickly goes beyond simply dragging
and dropping a few files.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2037-Sep-15 18:30, Richard Crowley writes:

The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24 produce
way larger and more files than will fit on a single DVD. When you
start making multiple discs and keeping track of which files are on
which disc, etc, it quickly goes beyond simply dragging and dropping
a few files.

iNdeed it does, and that's what we do is live events. THese disks have to be catalogued, and physically stored
somewhere. All this work for something that the need for is going to be minimal or nonexistent. As I stated earlier, we don't handle the project after the initial capture phase.
MIxing and further processing happens elsewhere. HEnce, if
the client wants us to go to the trouble of longer than 30
days archival then he needs to compensate us for that.

AS I noted elsewhere, only reason I bring the subject up was a prospect expressed surprise at our clause in the contract
that states multi-track hard disk is only retained for 30
days unless other arrangements are made, and said other
arrangements are a rider on the standard contract.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Ian Bell" wrote ...
Mike Rivers wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand how cut and pasting
24 files into a DVD burning application and slotting a DVD into a disc
drive is labour intensive.
Maybe he doesn't have a computer in the remote truck.
But he said

"USing hd-24 machine for
multi-track, so we pull it into the computer after the
session, render the multitrack data as broadcast .wav files
and transfer. Burning to cd (or dvd) would be a bit labor
intensive, so we just give the client a hd with the bwav
files "

So he has got it in a computer and converted it into wav files, so his
choice is to dump it to a hard drive or to a DVD. Still can;t see why the
DVD is more labour intensive.

The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24 produce
way larger and more files than will fit on a single DVD. When
you start making multiple discs and keeping track of which files
are on which disc, etc, it quickly goes beyond simply dragging
and dropping a few files.




Yup, got it, that makes sense.

Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message


The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24
produce way larger and more files than will fit on a single DVD.

Is that single layer or double layer DVD?

Plan B: USB Flash

Plan C: Blu Ray

Plan D: USB hard drive

When you start making multiple discs and keeping track of
which files are on which disc, etc, it quickly goes
beyond simply dragging and dropping a few files.

Agreed.

[Richard Crowley]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote
The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24
produce way larger and more files than will fit on a single DVD.

Is that single layer or double layer DVD?

Yes, even double-layer.
Besides, double-layer is not widely supported on most computers.

Plan B: USB Flash

Cost-effective ones are ~ same size as DVD discs.

Plan C: Blu Ray

More expensive than hard drive. Not many people have drives.

Plan D: USB hard drive

Yes, that ends up being the medium of choice.
Or, as likely, raw drives.

[Mike Rivers]

On Tue 2037-Sep-15 18:30, Richard Crowley writes:
When you
start making multiple discs and keeping track of which files are on
which disc, etc, it quickly goes beyond simply dragging and dropping
a few files.

Richard Webb wrote:
iNdeed it does, and that's what we do is live events. THese disks have to be catalogued, and physically stored
somewhere. All this work for something that the need for is going to be minimal or nonexistent.

I've just been tweaking noses over at the PreSonus StudioLive (mixer)
web site. The
issue being discussed there was simpler - burning a CD immediately after
a show. I
think that the original poster had in mind some sort of replication
system that would allow
him to make multiple copies. My point was that when the show's over, I
want to gather up
the mics, stands, and direct boxes, coil the cables, pull up the gaffer
tape, load up the van,
and get out of there before the all night diner closes at 1 AM.

I'll take a minute to burn one un-indexed CD from a stereo file if I've
recorded it on a
computer. It's just like taking a cassette out of the deck and handing
it to a band member.
But if they expect something more like a real CD where they can find
individual songs,
that takes more time than I'm willing to take at a gig unless i'm
specifically being paid
for it and it's in the plan. It doesn't take "just a few minutes."

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote
The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24
produce way larger and more files than will fit on a
single DVD.

Is that single layer or double layer DVD?

Yes, even double-layer.
Besides, double-layer is not widely supported on most
computers.

That's interesting, this must be legacy computers. As a system builder and
repairer, I can't buy drives worth having that aren't also dual layer.

Plan B: USB Flash

Cost-effective ones are ~ same size as DVD discs.

Yeah, I guess so, at least this week. USB flash price/performance seems to
be outpacing the usual doubling every 2 years that we've historically seen
with RAM. Right now 8 GB seems to be the commodity point, and that's about
the same size as a DL DVD. But there is no way that traditional DVDs will
ever go beyond DL, while in 12-18 months commodity USB flash will be more
like 16 GB.

Plan C: Blu Ray

More expensive than hard drive. Not many people have
drives.

Again, yeah, I guess so this week. We know what happened to DVD drive and
media prices. Based on past experiences, Blu-Ray prices will drop faster.
They started out far lower. I read that quad-layer Blu Ray is being talked
about. If they could get it all together we'll see 100 GB Blu Ray discs
selling for $0.25 in a few-5 years.

Plan D: USB hard drive

Yes, that ends up being the medium of choice.

Or, as likely, raw drives.

The combination of one of those USB hard drive controller dongles and raw
drives has an unbeatable price-performance. However, they are so capacious
and the unit pricing is high enough that you are back at the cataloging
problem.

IME, the ideal media would be small, in the 8-16 GB range, and cheap. It
would be loaded with one set of tracks for one project.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote
The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24
produce way larger and more files than will fit on a
single DVD.

Is that single layer or double layer DVD?

Yes, even double-layer.
Besides, double-layer is not widely supported on most
computers.

That's interesting, this must be legacy computers. As a system builder and
repairer, I can't buy drives worth having that aren't also dual layer.

Sure, I do as well. But I can't control what drives the customers have.
I haven't met one yet that had a double-layer drive.

Plan B: USB Flash

Cost-effective ones are ~ same size as DVD discs.

Yeah, I guess so, at least this week. USB flash price/performance seems to
be outpacing the usual doubling every 2 years that we've historically seen
with RAM. Right now 8 GB seems to be the commodity point, and that's
about the same size as a DL DVD. But there is no way that traditional DVDs
will ever go beyond DL, while in 12-18 months commodity USB flash will be
more like 16 GB.

Yes. As the cost/capacity factor continues to drop, USB (and other forms
of flash like SDHC, et.al.) will become more viable for this purpose. For
both
delivery and for archive purposes.

Plan C: Blu Ray

More expensive than hard drive. Not many people have
drives.

Again, yeah, I guess so this week. We know what happened to DVD drive and
media prices. Based on past experiences, Blu-Ray prices will drop faster.
They started out far lower. I read that quad-layer Blu Ray is being talked
about. If they could get it all together we'll see 100 GB Blu Ray discs
selling for $0.25 in a few-5 years.

Yes, no question that as BD takes over the DVD market, they will become
far less expensive and more widely supported. I can't wait. But that is
sometime in the future. I am now shooting and producing video from my
XDCAM HD camera, and it will be cool to be able to release HD on BD.
But BD writable discs are 5-10x more expensive than premium DVD at
this point.

Plan D: USB hard drive

Yes, that ends up being the medium of choice.

Or, as likely, raw drives.

The combination of one of those USB hard drive controller dongles and raw
drives has an unbeatable price-performance. However, they are so capacious
and the unit pricing is high enough that you are back at the cataloging
problem.

IME, the ideal media would be small, in the 8-16 GB range, and cheap. It
would be loaded with one set of tracks for one project.

I think that USB Thumb/SDHC will likely be there in a year or two.

I now cycle through four 16GB SDHC cards with my XDCAM HD
camcorder. No more tapes! It is quite liberating. Of course, now I
have the problem of how to archive, so my elation is tempered.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote
The kinds of live events that I record with my HD24
produce way larger and more files than will fit on a
single DVD.

Is that single layer or double layer DVD?

Yes, even double-layer.
Besides, double-layer is not widely supported on most
computers.

That's interesting, this must be legacy computers. As a
system builder and repairer, I can't buy drives worth
having that aren't also dual layer.

Sure, I do as well. But I can't control what drives the
customers have. I haven't met one yet that had a
double-layer drive.

Interesting. Given the minimal cost, the minimal effort and what's at stake,
I might consider offering a repeat customer a DL drive installation deal he
couldn't refuse.

Plan B: USB Flash

Cost-effective ones are ~ same size as DVD discs.

Yeah, I guess so, at least this week. USB flash
price/performance seems to be outpacing the usual
doubling every 2 years that we've historically seen with
RAM. Right now 8 GB seems to be the commodity point,
and that's about the same size as a DL DVD. But there is
no way that traditional DVDs will ever go beyond DL,
while in 12-18 months commodity USB flash will be more
like 16 GB.

Yes. As the cost/capacity factor continues to drop, USB
(and other forms of flash like SDHC, et.al.) will become
more viable for this purpose. For both delivery and for archive purposes.

I see that a local chain Microcenter is using 4 GB USB or SDHC as a freebie
come-on.

Plan C: Blu Ray

More expensive than hard drive. Not many people have
drives.

Again, yeah, I guess so this week. We know what
happened to DVD drive and media prices. Based on past
experiences, Blu-Ray prices will drop faster. They
started out far lower. I read that quad-layer Blu Ray is
being talked about. If they could get it all together
we'll see 100 GB Blu Ray discs selling for $0.25 in a
few-5 years.

Yes, no question that as BD takes over the DVD market,
they will become far less expensive and more widely
supported. I can't wait. But that is sometime in the
future. I am now shooting and producing video from my
XDCAM HD camera, and it will be cool to be able to
release HD on BD. But BD writable discs are 5-10x more expensive than
premium DVD at this point.

Yup. The future isn't now.

Plan D: USB hard drive

Yes, that ends up being the medium of choice.

Or, as likely, raw drives.

The combination of one of those USB hard drive
controller dongles and raw drives has an unbeatable
price-performance. However, they are so capacious and
the unit pricing is high enough that you are back at the
cataloging problem.

IME, the ideal media would be small, in the 8-16 GB
range, and cheap. It would be loaded with one set of
tracks for one project.

I think that USB Thumb/SDHC will likely be there in a
year or two.

I now cycle through four 16GB SDHC cards with my XDCAM HD
camcorder. No more tapes! It is quite liberating. Of course, now I have
the problem of how to archive, so my elation is
tempered.

I haven't done my homework. How archival is Flash?

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I haven't done my homework. How archival is Flash?

I don't know that anyone has seriously looked into it as a real
"last forever" archive medium, but since there's more going on
inside that chip than just flipping bits, there's certainly potential
for failure at any time, and certainly of connectivity obsolescence.

However, flash memory cards are now cheap enough so that they
could be used as "until it no longer works" storage, and we all have
experience with that - floppy disks, hard drives, CD-Rs that have
been left on the dashboard of the car too long.

I have a couple of Gepe Card Safe cases for the memory cards
that I use in my Zoom H2. I eventually get around to making CD
and hard disk backups of things that I haven't decided to discard
(which is actually a whole lot of what I record), but by having a
handful of cards and a way to store them in a sort of organized
manner I don't feel compelled to immediately make a storage
copy and then recycle the cards.

http://www.gepe.com/website/index.as...showProdID=211

[William Sommerwerck]

I haven't done my homework. How archival is Flash?

I don't know that anyone has seriously looked into it as a real
"last forever" archive medium, but since there's more going on
inside that chip than just flipping bits, there's potential for
failure at any time, and of connectivity obsolescence.

I believe all existing flash media work by injecting electrons into a
potential well. (CMIIR.) It stands to reason that the electrons will
"eventually" leak or tunnel from the well. How long this takes, I don't
know. The point, of course, is that the contents of any "memory device"
should be periodically backed up.

Flash memory comes in a variety of shapes and sizes (there are at least a
half-dozen), and as none seems to have the upper hand, market-wise, it will
likely be decades before multi-format readers are no longer made. I have one
that reads any format and includes several USB ports. It cost $20.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

I haven't done my homework. How archival is Flash?

I don't know that anyone has seriously looked into it as
a real "last forever" archive medium, but since there's
more going on inside that chip than just flipping bits,
there's certainly potential for failure at any time, and
certainly of connectivity obsolescence.

Yes connectivity obsolescence is there as a possible issue. USB has been
around for maybe 15 years if memory serves, and is still on the rise, I
think. USB seems to be slowly killing off Firewire. I hear that even Apple
is building machines that lack FW ports. I get a lot more requests for
machines with more USB ports than anything else, even more CPU cycles, RAM
or hard drives.

Of the current digital formats, the CD format has been around for about 25
years and shows no sign of flagging. Flash is the natural competitor of
optical media, but so far the only format that flash may have seriously
impacted is the floppy disk. I find that there's zero sales resistance to
PCs that lack floppy disk drives.

I did a little research, and found mixed results. The life of flash,
according to the range of somewhat non-technical documents that I could find
quickly, ranges from 10 to 100 years. Not all flash is based on the
identical same technology at the chip cell level, so all claims could
possibly be true.

I think that 20 years might be a reasonable number for Flash, with the
caveat that data life may go down as density goes up. Note that some claims
for Flash have to be tempered, because they subtly narrowly address how long
the device may remain functional, not how long the data stored on it is
still readable.

Compared to magnetic disk, Flash has strong limitations on R/W cycling. Not
as bad as recordable optical media, but definitely there when you start
talking about replacing hard drives. A lot of flash RAM controllers seem to
keep moving frequently rewritten data, like file directories, in order to
keep dead spots from forming. They also do a lot of on-the-fly data recovery
and bad block marking, that seems to be completely under the covers.

I wouldn't be surprised to someday find a well-used 4 GB flash drive that
fills up with 3 GB of data.

[Mike Rivers]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

it will
likely be decades before multi-format readers are no longer made. I have one
that reads any format and includes several USB ports. It cost $20.

Remind me in 20 years and I'll ask you how your USB memory card reader is
doing. g

Multi-format readers may be made 20 years from now, but whether they'll
accommodate
the formats that I'm using now is, well, in the cards.

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Yes connectivity obsolescence is there as a possible issue. USB has been
around for maybe 15 years if memory serves, and is still on the rise, I
think. USB seems to be slowly killing off Firewire.

USB2 seems to be hanging in there, but I keep hearing rumors of a USB3. At
least there's some backward compatibility - USB1.1 devices work just
fine when
connected to USB2 ports, but what happens with USB3 remains to be seen.

Of the current digital formats, the CD format has been around for about 25
years and shows no sign of flagging. Flash is the natural competitor of
optical media, but so far the only format that flash may have seriously
impacted is the floppy disk. I find that there's zero sales resistance to
PCs that lack floppy disk drives.

Well, at least as long as I'm keeping my Mackie recorders alive, I'll
need a
PC with a floppy drive because that's how the software loads. Since there's
no support in the hardware for any alternative, unless someone makes a
flash reader with a floppy drive interface (and I wouldn't be surprised if
someone does) we're stuck with booting from a floppy to load software and
boot-patch the hard drive.

As far as CDs go, I'm not sure you can still buy an audio CD player. All DVD
players can play a CD, but the two that I have take much longer to get
started
than the two CD (only) players I have. Takes 'em too much time to decide
what
they're dealing with. And while you might find a CD-RW/DVD-R drive at a
liquidator, there's just about about all CD/DVD-RW. And I think I've had
more
trouble with CDs not writing for any explainable reason than I ever had
with
floppy disks. Although I have noticed, perhaps since I rarely use floppy
any more
and most that I have here are older than I realize, that I seem to find
more
unreadable floppys lately.

I did a little research, and found mixed results. The life of flash,
according to the range of somewhat non-technical documents that I could find
quickly, ranges from 10 to 100 years. Not all flash is based on the
identical same technology at the chip cell level, so all claims could
possibly be true.

I think number of write/format/erase cycles has something to do with it,
too.
Camera people who essentially use a memory card as fixed media and erase
photos that they don't want to keep or that they've copied off to a
computer or
CD seem to have more outright failures of the card than what I've heard
of in
audio applications.

I think that 20 years might be a reasonable number for Flash, with the
caveat that data life may go down as density goes up.

I'm still pretty happy with what I'm hearing off some 50 year old analog
tape.
Sure, it doesn't have all the top end that I thought it had, but then
neither
do my ears, so who's the wiser? g And I think I might even have some
punched paper tape around here somewhere. So 20 years is barely enough
to grow up with.

They also do a lot of on-the-fly data recovery
and bad block marking, that seems to be completely under the covers.
I wouldn't be surprised to someday find a well-used 4 GB flash drive
that
fills up with 3 GB of data.

But I suppose that eventually it just won't work and then you'll lose a
lot of
data

[William Sommerwerck]

USB 2.0 seems to be hanging in there, but I keep hearing
rumors of a USB 3.0.

It should be out next year.

At least there's some backward compatibility -- USB1.1 devices
work just fine when connected to USB 2 ports, but what happens
with USB 3 remains to be seen.

There shouldn't be any problem. How hard is it to slow down?


I've seen parts of the USB spec. It's unbelievable. Page after page after
page after page...

One other remark about flash RAM... We were talking about archival use,
where the card "just sits there", without being rewritten. Each write cycle
slightly degrades flash RAM. Devices using flash RAM usually have an
interface that "levels" the usage, so that a given section doesn't wear out
prematurely. Nevertheless (still haven't posted that joke, have I?), I wait
until my camera's card is nearly full before deleting anything on it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Yes connectivity obsolescence is there as a possible
issue. USB has been around for maybe 15 years if memory
serves, and is still on the rise, I think. USB seems to
be slowly killing off Firewire.

USB2 seems to be hanging in there, but I keep hearing
rumors of a USB3. At least there's some backward
compatibility - USB1.1 devices work just fine when
connected to USB2 ports, but what happens with USB3
remains to be seen.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2...es-usb-3-0.ars


"Although still in the prototype stage, USB 3.0 is aiming for 10 times the
bandwidth of current USB2.0 solutions, or approximately 5Gbps. Since this
requires fiber optic cabling, USB 3.0 will add a length of optical data
cable to the mix, though USB 3.0 will retain full compatibility with USB 2.0
(and, one assumes, USB 1.0 as well)."

Just guessing, but I suspect they'll augment the current electrical-only
interface with a fiber connection. USB meets TOSLink?


Of the current digital formats, the CD format has been
around for about 25 years and shows no sign of flagging.
Flash is the natural competitor of optical media, but so
far the only format that flash may have seriously
impacted is the floppy disk. I find that there's zero
sales resistance to PCs that lack floppy disk drives.

Well, at least as long as I'm keeping my Mackie recorders
alive, I'll need a
PC with a floppy drive because that's how the software
loads.

IME USB floppies work pretty well, and the one I have runs twice as fast as
the traditional kind. Still so slow I can't say I notice the improvement.

Since there's no support in the hardware for any
alternative, unless someone makes a flash reader with a
floppy drive interface (and I wouldn't be surprised if
someone does) we're stuck with booting from a floppy to
load software and boot-patch the hard drive.

Both flash and external floppy plug into the same USB port. Done!

As far as CDs go, I'm not sure you can still buy an audio
CD player.

Portable and professional CD market still seems to exist.

All DVD players can play a CD, but the two
that I have take much longer to get started
than the two CD (only) players I have. Takes 'em too much
time to decide what
they're dealing with.

A little experience with BluRay will teach you to not be so impatient! ;-)


And while you might find a
CD-RW/DVD-R drive at a liquidator, there's just about
about all CD/DVD-RW. And I think I've had more
trouble with CDs not writing for any explainable reason
than I ever had with
floppy disks.

Just lately the HHB CD writer has gotten cranky.

Although I have noticed, perhaps since I
rarely use floppy any more
and most that I have here are older than I realize, that
I seem to find more
unreadable floppys lately.

I find that the older drives were more tolerant.

I did a little research, and found mixed results. The
life of flash, according to the range of somewhat
non-technical documents that I could find quickly,
ranges from 10 to 100 years. Not all flash is based on
the identical same technology at the chip cell level, so
all claims could possibly be true.

I think number of write/format/erase cycles has something
to do with it, too.

Perhaps. Didn't see any references to that, but the online doc seems
shallow, as far as I got into it.

Camera people who essentially use a memory card as fixed
media and erase photos that they don't want to keep or
that they've copied off to a computer or
CD seem to have more outright failures of the card than
what I've heard of in audio applications.

Operator error?

I think that 20 years might be a reasonable number for
Flash, with the caveat that data life may go down as
density goes up.

I'm still pretty happy with what I'm hearing off some 50
year old analog tape.
Sure, it doesn't have all the top end that I thought it
had, but then neither
do my ears, so who's the wiser? g And I think I might
even have some punched paper tape around here somewhere.
So 20 years is barely enough to grow up with.

Seems like the market may tell the producers we want archivable media, now
that the capacity is what it is.

They also do a lot of on-the-fly data recovery
and bad block marking, that seems to be completely under
the covers. I wouldn't be surprised to someday find a well-used 4 GB
flash drive that fills up with 3 GB of data.

But I suppose that eventually it just won't work and then
you'll lose a lot of data

Hence: "A lot of flash RAM controllers seem to
keep moving frequently rewritten data, like file directories, in order to
keep dead spots from forming."

I've never lost a flash drive, except due to physical damage to the
off-chip controller.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
I haven't done my homework. How archival is Flash?

I had an elevator conversation with one of the quality and
reliability managers here in the office, and he said that he
thought a quality, fresh (only a few write cycles) Flash RAM
would have a life expectancy the better part of 100 years.

Fortunately, I have no data that will be needed in 100 years
(or likely even 50 years), so it is an academic question. I'm
not sure I have that level of confidence given the method of
storing information, either. The same claims were/are made
for writable optical discs in which I have ZERO archival
confidence.

[Mike Rivers]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

At least there's some backward compatibility -- USB1.1 devices
work just fine when connected to USB 2 ports, but what happens
with USB 3 remains to be seen.

There shouldn't be any problem. How hard is it to slow down?

Isn't that why PCs used to have a Turbo switch - so you could slow it
down for things that couldn't keep up? PC-100 SIMMs are getting hard
to find and newer ones won't work in a motherboard that's designed for
slower memory. It apparently loses its memory before the next clock cycle.
And suppose they come up with a different connector like Firewire 800?
Lots of Firewire 400 stuff won't work on a Firewire 800 chipset even if
you make the plugs and jacks fit.

So, yeah, just how hard is it to slow down?

One other remark about flash RAM... We were talking about archival use,
where the card "just sits there", without being rewritten.

True, but there's probably more than one failure mode, and probably some
that they haven't discovered yet. After all, nobody anticipated sticky shed
syndrome, though forunately there's something you can do to recover audio
from sticky tape.

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Just guessing, but I suspect they'll augment the current electrical-only
interface with a fiber connection. USB meets TOSLink?

Probably more like Fiber Channel meets copper.

IME USB floppies work pretty well, and the one I have runs twice as fast as
the traditional kind. Still so slow I can't say I notice the improvement.

That's OK for a regular computer, which would take care of being able
to create floppy disks to load into the Mackie recorder, but it would be
nice to not have to depend on what seems to be a dwindling medium
even if I can keep the drive working.

Both flash and external floppy plug into the same USB port. Done!

Not on my Mackie recorder they don't. No USB port, and the operating
system doesn't have a driver for one. If there was still software support
it wouldn't be out of the question to add a USB driver and stick a PCI
card in there (there's a spare slot if it's not taken up by the 3xADAT
I/O card) but there's no more support and no open source code
available.

Seems like the market may tell the producers we want archivable media, now
that the capacity is what it is.

Perhaps a small segment of the market. I don't know what camera people do
with the thousands of digital photos that they take, but I know that music
consumers have little interest in long term archiving. There will always
be the
'net for downloading new music, or to replace old beloved music.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

William Sommerwerck wrote:

At least there's some backward compatibility -- USB1.1
devices work just fine when connected to USB 2 ports,
but what happens with USB 3 remains to be seen.

There shouldn't be any problem. How hard is it to slow
down?

They slow themselves down these days - when you don't need the power.

Isn't that why PCs used to have a Turbo switch - so you
could slow it down for things that couldn't keep up?

I think turbo switches were actually marketing ploys. I've never seen
anybody not run a machine with a turbo switch without it on, except by
mistake.


PC-100 SIMMs are getting hard to find and newer ones won't work in a
motherboard that's
designed for slower memory.

That's mostly a size thing.

It apparently loses its
memory before the next clock cycle. And suppose they come
up with a different connector like Firewire 800? Lots of
Firewire 400 stuff won't work on a Firewire 800 chipset
even if you make the plugs and jacks fit.

It looks like FW is slowly drifting away. I hear that even Apple is leaving
it off of some of their PCs. Given that you can get 4 FW ports on a $20
card, its not the costs that is forcing Apple to leave them off.

So, yeah, just how hard is it to slow down?

It happens all the time on modern PCs.

One other remark about flash RAM... We were talking
about archival use, where the card "just sits there",
without being rewritten.

True, but there's probably more than one failure mode,
and probably some that they haven't discovered yet. After
all, nobody anticipated sticky shed syndrome, though
fortunately there's something you can do to recover audio
from sticky tape.

The PC business' versions of that have been the recent boondoggles with
bursting caps and smoldering batteries.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Just guessing, but I suspect they'll augment the current
electrical-only interface with a fiber connection. USB
meets TOSLink?

Probably more like Fiber Channel meets copper.

IME USB floppies work pretty well, and the one I have
runs twice as fast as the traditional kind. Still so
slow I can't say I notice the improvement.

That's OK for a regular computer, which would take care
of being able to create floppy disks to load into the Mackie recorder,
but it would be nice to not have to depend on what seems
to be a dwindling medium even if I can keep the drive working.

You say that Mackie never put USB support on that box?

Both flash and external floppy plug into the same USB
port. Done!

Not on my Mackie recorder they don't. No USB port,

Ouch!

and the operating system doesn't have a driver for one. If
there was still software support it wouldn't be out of
the question to add a USB driver and stick a PCI card in
there (there's a spare slot if it's not taken up by the
3xADAT I/O card) but there's no more support and no open
source code available.

Sic Transit Gloria...

Seems like the market may tell the producers we want
archivable media, now that the capacity is what it is.

Perhaps a small segment of the market. I don't know what
camera people do with the thousands of digital photos
that they take, but I know that music consumers have
little interest in long term archiving. There will always
be the 'net for downloading new music, or to replace old
beloved music.

I could see long effective storage life as a good marketing ploy for whoever
picks it up. Everybody is risk adverse.