Porky wrote:

[quoting me]

Short term backup: Yes, long term storage: No. A stored harddisk
has no better lifetime expectancy than the one of the first
electrolytic cap on its mobo if not regularly powered up, ie.
5 years and be happy. Electrolytic caps that are regularly
powered up have a lifetime expectancy of 17 years.

I know of a few studios that are doing long term storage on
hard drives, but they are storing the hard drives in fireproof,
magnetically shielded safes, and keeping those in temperature
and humidity controlled rooms,

They probably have the safes for tapes already ... not gonna help the
electrolytic caps from failing nor gonna prevent bearings from
malfunctioning due to simple lack of use and drying up of lubrication.
My understanding is, until corrected by someone knowing this way better
than myself, that the harddisk mean time between failure assumes that
the drive is powered up and idling. More knowledgeable people may be
around over in rec.audio.tech, a crosspost has been added for their
benefit.

and most keep DVD backups as well. Much better, I think, to buy
a DVD burner and store your backups on DVD. Make two copies and
keep them in separate locations if you want to be sure,

And use different brand disks for the two copies, at least not two from
the same production run.

DVD/R's are cheap enough now, you can get them for less than
a buck apiece, and that's less expensive per GB than a
hard drive, a hundred bucks will get you over 400 GB of storage,

I don't know about their longevity tho'¨... what I do know is that Kodak
apparently left the CD-rom market when it got totally price focused, I
also know that the lowest error rates I have measured from anything CD-R
with Plextools Professional are from Kodak Gold CD-R's .... the only
CD-R brand known to me to currently to guarantee 100 years lifetime
(based on accellerated tests and theory ... ) is Verbatim. I have heard,
seen or read nothing about the longevity of DVD-disks .... knowing
nothing I would prefer to use the simplest usable technology with the
lowest applicable write density, i.e. CD-R's, for audio file storage.
Data backup with a 5 year perspective is a way different issue from the
one of long term storage ...

and I don't know of any 400 GB hard drives for just a hundred
bucks. When you figure in the cost of magnetically shielded
storage boxes, DVD storage gets downright cheap. :-)

Yes, but do not confuse backup in case something goes haywire with
something, including a plane crashing into a building, with long term
storage.

You could be better off making impressions with a finger into the sand
on a wisely chosen beach (x) than doing almost anything else, but it
would be a major undertaking to store the digitized Do the Diddy Wah Wah
in that manner .... the next best thing is to use a standard pencil and
archive stable paper.

(x) just choose one that will become sandstone as is, i.e. get covered
by something, volcanic ash is probably excellent, before the next tide
rushes in ...


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

I know of a few studios that are doing long term storage on
hard drives, but they are storing the hard drives in fireproof,
magnetically shielded safes, and keeping those in temperature
and humidity controlled rooms,

They probably have the safes for tapes already ... not gonna help the
electrolytic caps from failing nor gonna prevent bearings from
malfunctioning due to simple lack of use and drying up of lubrication.

It seems contradictory to me to say that DVDs are far cheaper than HDs yet
people are for some reason choosing HDs as a long-term storage mechanism.
Since a HD has a much larger fixed size, you have to either waste a lot of
space or wait until you have multiple projects available to be backed up.
That means keeping the HD active, which increases the chances of errors
(power failures, humans overwriting data, etc). You can back up to a CD/DVD
whenever you want, including while you are still working on the project.
Combine this with your IMHO correct statement that the failure rate for the
HDs may increase with inactivity and you see HDs as not such a good medium.

On top of that technology may change. CDs I had 10-15 years ago (all I
remember is that I had a Sony 1X proprietary drive) could still be read
today. I doubt I could read those HDs today. First, there is the
hardware/controller issue. Second, there is the operating system issue (good
luck read FAT16 these days). CDs are OS independent, so you don't have to
worry about switching to/from a Mac or some other box in the coming years.

Unless you have hot-swappable drives, accessing archived HDs will be a
relatively time consuming process of installation. Just pop a CD into the
drive, and you're done. Like someone else said (or maybe you) HDs are much
more susceptible to damage than HDs, so if you drop it as you take it out of
the safe, you can forget about it. If it fails, you lose multiple projects
unless you are using one HD per project, which would make the cost
incredibly high.

I think maybe Porky is a bit confused about what his friends are doing. I
have a friend who works in a small video production shop. They have a number
of swappable drives constantly in circulation. Due to the time demands of
the business (and laziness), they will sometimes store a HD until such time
as they can do the proper backup.

And use different brand disks for the two copies, at least not two from
the same production run.

An excellent suggestion. I agree the best bet today is using CDs. They are
cheap. A typical CD holds, what, 72 minutes of stereo data? That comes out
to 36 mono tracks of four minutes, right? So a lot of projects may fit on a
single CD. If not, splitting them to multiple CDs is not hard. If there is
degradation of the medium, obviously the DVD will suffer before the CD, so
it's safer (you said that already, right?).

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Porky wrote:

[quoting me]

Short term backup: Yes, long term storage: No. A stored harddisk
has no better lifetime expectancy than the one of the first
electrolytic cap on its mobo if not regularly powered up, ie.
5 years and be happy. Electrolytic caps that are regularly
powered up have a lifetime expectancy of 17 years.

I know of a few studios that are doing long term storage on
hard drives, but they are storing the hard drives in fireproof,
magnetically shielded safes, and keeping those in temperature
and humidity controlled rooms,

They probably have the safes for tapes already ... not gonna help the
electrolytic caps from failing nor gonna prevent bearings from
malfunctioning due to simple lack of use and drying up of lubrication.
My understanding is, until corrected by someone knowing this way better
than myself, that the harddisk mean time between failure assumes that
the drive is powered up and idling. More knowledgeable people may be
around over in rec.audio.tech, a crosspost has been added for their
benefit.

I agree with you, and I'm not defending those studios, I think they are
making a mistake if they don't back up on other mediums as well. I think the
rationale is that they can revise and resave the song tracks in their new
format if stored on a hard drive, I did point out that DVD long term storage
makes more sense. I was just saying that there are studios storing back ups
on hard drives.

and most keep DVD backups as well. Much better, I think, to buy
a DVD burner and store your backups on DVD. Make two copies and
keep them in separate locations if you want to be sure,

And use different brand disks for the two copies, at least not two from
the same production run.

Agreed, the belt and suspenders approach is the safest.

DVD/R's are cheap enough now, you can get them for less than
a buck apiece, and that's less expensive per GB than a
hard drive, a hundred bucks will get you over 400 GB of storage,

I don't know about their longevity tho'¨... what I do know is that Kodak
apparently left the CD-rom market when it got totally price focused, I
also know that the lowest error rates I have measured from anything CD-R
with Plextools Professional are from Kodak Gold CD-R's .... the only
CD-R brand known to me to currently to guarantee 100 years lifetime
(based on accellerated tests and theory ... ) is Verbatim. I have heard,
seen or read nothing about the longevity of DVD-disks .... knowing
nothing I would prefer to use the simplest usable technology with the
lowest applicable write density, i.e. CD-R's, for audio file storage.
Data backup with a 5 year perspective is a way different issue from the
one of long term storage ...

The articles I've seen about "CD rot" state that some CD's, especially the
older ones, have problems with the media deteriorating and data being lost
and corrupted over time. There seems to be disagreement as to whether DVD's
suffer from this condition, due to the advances in the technology. However I
suppose one must assume that it might apply to DVD's as well. However, I
think CD or DVD storage of data files is probably the cheapest and safest
form of long term storage right now.

and I don't know of any 400 GB hard drives for just a hundred
bucks. When you figure in the cost of magnetically shielded
storage boxes, DVD storage gets downright cheap. :-)

Yes, but do not confuse backup in case something goes haywire with
something, including a plane crashing into a building, with long term
storage.

I agree and if one really wants to be on the safe side it's best to make
multiple copies and keep them in separate locations.

You could be better off making impressions with a finger into the sand
on a wisely chosen beach (x) than doing almost anything else, but it
would be a major undertaking to store the digitized Do the Diddy Wah Wah
in that manner .... the next best thing is to use a standard pencil and
archive stable paper.

(x) just choose one that will become sandstone as is, i.e. get covered
by something, volcanic ash is probably excellent, before the next tide
rushes in ...

*LOL*

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:UlY9d.13821$_a3.11511@fed1read05...
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

I know of a few studios that are doing long term storage on
hard drives, but they are storing the hard drives in fireproof,
magnetically shielded safes, and keeping those in temperature
and humidity controlled rooms,

They probably have the safes for tapes already ... not gonna help the
electrolytic caps from failing nor gonna prevent bearings from
malfunctioning due to simple lack of use and drying up of lubrication.

It seems contradictory to me to say that DVDs are far cheaper than HDs yet
people are for some reason choosing HDs as a long-term storage mechanism.
Since a HD has a much larger fixed size, you have to either waste a lot of
space or wait until you have multiple projects available to be backed up.
That means keeping the HD active, which increases the chances of errors
(power failures, humans overwriting data, etc). You can back up to a
CD/DVD
whenever you want, including while you are still working on the project.
Combine this with your IMHO correct statement that the failure rate for
the
HDs may increase with inactivity and you see HDs as not such a good
medium.

Typically, one simply uses a USB 2 or firewire adapter with the back up
drive, then one hooks it up whenever one desires to make a back up. After
the backup is complete one places the drive back into storage. As Peter
pointed out, your data is probably safer in the long run doing this than if
the drive just sits in storage and is never powered up. However, I agree
that a hard drive isn't a very good medium for long term data storage.

On top of that technology may change. CDs I had 10-15 years ago (all I
remember is that I had a Sony 1X proprietary drive) could still be read
today. I doubt I could read those HDs today. First, there is the
hardware/controller issue. Second, there is the operating system issue
(good
luck read FAT16 these days). CDs are OS independent, so you don't have to
worry about switching to/from a Mac or some other box in the coming years.

Unless you have hot-swappable drives, accessing archived HDs will be a
relatively time consuming process of installation. Just pop a CD into the
drive, and you're done. Like someone else said (or maybe you) HDs are much
more susceptible to damage than HDs, so if you drop it as you take it out
of
the safe, you can forget about it. If it fails, you lose multiple projects
unless you are using one HD per project, which would make the cost
incredibly high.

I really don't think anyone uses drives that aren't hot swappable for data
back up nowadays, USB 2 adapters are just too cheap and convenient to be
ignored.

I think maybe Porky is a bit confused about what his friends are doing. I
have a friend who works in a small video production shop. They have a
number
of swappable drives constantly in circulation. Due to the time demands of
the business (and laziness), they will sometimes store a HD until such
time
as they can do the proper backup.

None of my friends is using hard drives for long term storage, I just know
of a few studios in the area who are doing so. As I said, most of them also
back up on DVD as well. Hard drives do work well for short term back up of
prijects that are still evolving, you don't waste a DVD/R everytime you
revise the song. Nearly everyone I know uses hot swappable hard drives for
short term storage, but a few do use them for long term storage. Actually I
suspect they were sold a bill of goods by the company selling the
magnetically shielded safes.

And use different brand disks for the two copies, at least not two from
the same production run.

An excellent suggestion. I agree the best bet today is using CDs. They are
cheap. A typical CD holds, what, 72 minutes of stereo data? That comes out
to 36 mono tracks of four minutes, right? So a lot of projects may fit on
a
single CD. If not, splitting them to multiple CDs is not hard. If there is
degradation of the medium, obviously the DVD will suffer before the CD, so
it's safer (you said that already, right?).

How much song data a CD (or DVD) holds depends on the data format, if one
is using 24/96, as many studios are, the amount of tracks you can store
drops to the point that a multi track song may not fit on one CD. As for
degradation of the medium, DVD rot seems to be quite rare, and in most cases
it seems to be the result of improper handling and storage. I suppose one
can say the same for CD's.

"Porky" wrote in message
.. .

How much song data a CD (or DVD) holds depends on the data format, if
one
is using 24/96, as many studios are, the amount of tracks you can store
drops to the point that a multi track song may not fit on one CD. As for
degradation of the medium, DVD rot seems to be quite rare, and in most
cases
it seems to be the result of improper handling and storage. I suppose one
can say the same for CD's.

This is why I get sick and tired of you, Porky. You replied and added
nothing. Then you try to make some point to make yourself feel important.
Obviously I was talking about 16/44 data. Everybody here knows that if you
use a different format it takes up a different amount of space. Most of us
here deal with 16/44.

Your arguments are so circular. One minute you're talking about people
building DAWs on a budget and buying clearance shelf 5400 drives (and most
likely 16/44 sound cards). The next minute it's hot swappable drives in
professional studios working at 24/96. Then you call USB 2.0 hot-swappable
drives when they are not. They are removable, but not what we mean by hot
swappable. But I digress.

Back to your circular arguemnts. You warn everybody about the alleged risks
of running older/cheaper optical drives on the same controller as a modern
HD because it might not be compatible. Then you offer as proof
professionally designed DAWs when those systems clearly will NOT be using
older/cheaper components that have compatibility issues. You warn about old
MBs that may not support indpendent speeds on the same IDE channel, but then
you tell people to also install a gig of RAM. Those old MBs probably don't
even support a gig of RAM. Make up your freaking mind!

You really infuriate me. What's sad is that you're not trying to. Ghost
tries to get under my skin, but he amuses me. Well, maybe you are trying to
irritate me because you always have to have the last word. It's hard to find
a thread you're in where somebody else ended it (look for yourself).

In the first week of July while you were gone, the entire group posted 98
messages. In the first week of October you single-handedly posted 134
messages. And guess what? At least 90% of those messages are people
disagreeing with you. Something is wrong here.

I can only speak for myself, but I have a problem with someone no matter how
good his intentions who single-handedly results in the message volume
doubling. No wonder I made the Porky page.

I'll make a deal with you. If you promise never to post more than 5 messages
per day in this newsgroup, I promise never to say a bad word against you
*and* promise never to exceed 5 messages per day myself. How about it? Is it
a deal? I bet the majority of folks in this group will be grateful to see
less of both of us.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:VM4ad.16427$_a3.1535@fed1read05...
"Porky" wrote in message
.. .

How much song data a CD (or DVD) holds depends on the data format, if
one
is using 24/96, as many studios are, the amount of tracks you can store
drops to the point that a multi track song may not fit on one CD. As for
degradation of the medium, DVD rot seems to be quite rare, and in most
cases
it seems to be the result of improper handling and storage. I suppose
one
can say the same for CD's.

This is why I get sick and tired of you, Porky. You replied and added
nothing. Then you try to make some point to make yourself feel important.
Obviously I was talking about 16/44 data. Everybody here knows that if you
use a different format it takes up a different amount of space. Most of us
here deal with 16/44.

A added that 24/96 took up a lot more space than 16/44.1. As for the "most
of us deal with 16/44.1" comment, quite a few group members have indicated
in the past that they recorded their multitracks in 24/96 format. You made a
point about CD's being able to hold 36 four minute track, and I pointed out,
accurately, that that wasn't always the case. Why do you have such a problem
when someone disagrees with you, even if the someone is correct? In point of
fact, I actually didn't even disagree with you, I just added a
qualification.

Your arguments are so circular. One minute you're talking about people
building DAWs on a budget and buying clearance shelf 5400 drives (and most
likely 16/44 sound cards). The next minute it's hot swappable drives in
professional studios working at 24/96. Then you call USB 2.0 hot-swappable
drives when they are not. They are removable, but not what we mean by hot
swappable. But I digress.

Your arguments are so lame. USB 2 drives can be attached and removed while
the system is running, which is exactly what "hot swappable" means!
From http://computing-dictionary.thefreed...hot%20swapping, and
others: "hot swapping - The connection and disconnection of peripherals or
other components without interrupting system operation. This facility may
have design implications for both hardware and software." I don't know what
you mean by "hot swappable" but that's what the rest of the world means.
As for the rest, Just because someone builds a budget machine doesn't
mean that they won't be recording in 24/96. One can buy a USB 2 interface
enclosure and an ATA 100 drive for less than $150.00 so that doesn't take it
out of the "budget" category. I pointed out that a few studios were using
hard drives for long term storage because its true, and I certainly didn't
recommend it for amateur use.

Back to your circular arguemnts. You warn everybody about the alleged
risks
of running older/cheaper optical drives on the same controller as a modern
HD because it might not be compatible. Then you offer as proof
professionally designed DAWs when those systems clearly will NOT be using
older/cheaper components that have compatibility issues. You warn about
old
MBs that may not support indpendent speeds on the same IDE channel, but
then
you tell people to also install a gig of RAM. Those old MBs probably don't
even support a gig of RAM. Make up your freaking mind!

No, I made the statement that it was wise to separate drives on
controllers according to type, and since virtually all the experts still
make the same recommendation, does that mean you think they're wrong too?
When I was asked about why I recommended it, the argument that the experts
still recommend it apparently wasn't good enough, so I gave a few rather
obvious examples, and then you want to jump me over that too. BTW, NOWHERE
did I say anything about buying an old motherboard, mobo's are cheap enough
that there is no reason to skimp there when building a budget DAW. If you
don't know that, then you don't know enough to be commenting on this thread.
I don't understand all the disagreement when I'm just passing along what
amounts to common knowledge, and when following the recommendations is not
one bit harder than doing it any other way, and it practically guarantees no
risk of the problems that might be encountered otherwise. I was trying to
give an admitted newbie good advice about putting together a DAW computer,
and you want to cloud the issues with all that "it isn't necessary anymore"
Good design technique is ALWAYS necessary! You certainly don't see any of
the companies that build PC-based DAWS mixing drives like that, now why
would you think that is, Jim?


You really infuriate me. What's sad is that you're not trying to. Ghost
tries to get under my skin, but he amuses me. Well, maybe you are trying
to
irritate me because you always have to have the last word. It's hard to
find
a thread you're in where somebody else ended it (look for yourself).

Did it ever occur to you that it might be because I was right, or that the
comment I made was the proper one to close the thread? It isn't because I
want the last word, it's because I'm trying to be helpful, so I post things
that I think might be so. Maybe it's a bit elementary for the regulars here,
but any newbies who might be lurking can make use of it. I don't post for
the benefit of the experts here, many of them know a lot more than I do, but
if you read the various long threads, many of the regulars tend to post in
language and using math that is over the typical home recordist's head. In
many cases, I try to make comments or ask questions that even the newbies
with little or no technical education can understand. If this infuriates
you, I apologize, I certainly don't intend it that way, but if home-studio
isn't for educating those with interest but little practical knowledge, as
well as discussing advanced aspects of the art, then what the hell is it
for?

In the first week of July while you were gone, the entire group posted 98
messages. In the first week of October you single-handedly posted 134
messages. And guess what? At least 90% of those messages are people
disagreeing with you. Something is wrong here.

Since the first week in July is vacation time for many people that isn't
statistically significant. The first week in Octrober was when the
discussion about Doppler distortion was in full swing and many of my posts
were related to that topic, and it was mostly discussion, not argument.
Something IS wrong here because nowhere near 90% were disagreeing with me,
and none were arguing with me. The Doppler distortion argument has been
going on for many years without being solved to everyone's satisfaction,
don't you think there is bound to be considerable disagreement in this
group?

I can only speak for myself, but I have a problem with someone no matter
how
good his intentions who single-handedly results in the message volume
doubling. No wonder I made the Porky page.

As you previously stated, Bob Cain posted more than I did, and the bulk of
both our posts were on the same topic, so how come you have a problem with
me but not with him?

I'll make a deal with you. If you promise never to post more than 5
messages
per day in this newsgroup, I promise never to say a bad word against you
*and* promise never to exceed 5 messages per day myself. How about it? Is
it
a deal? I bet the majority of folks in this group will be grateful to see
less of both of us.

I won't disagree that I tend to post too much, I tend to use a news group
like a chat room and I shouldn't, but it's a hard habit to break. I have an
alternate proposal, because there will be times when both of us may have
something to contribute on more than five different threads and there may be
other times where multiple posts are appropriate. I don't want to impose
limits on your contributions because when you're not harranguing someone
(me!:-) you often make good contributions, and you have a knack for asking
the right questions. Let's just agree to try to keep it to a reasonable
minimum, and anytime you think I'm posting too much you tell me and I'll
knock off for the rest of the day. Is that fair enough?
BTW, I won't post for the next 24 hours, just to show that I'm sincere
about it.
..

"Porky" wrote in message
. ..

I won't disagree that I tend to post too much, I tend to use a news
group
like a chat room and I shouldn't, but it's a hard habit to break. I have
an
alternate proposal, because there will be times when both of us may have
something to contribute on more than five different threads and there may
be
other times where multiple posts are appropriate. I don't want to impose
limits on your contributions because when you're not harranguing someone
(me!:-) you often make good contributions, and you have a knack for asking
the right questions. Let's just agree to try to keep it to a reasonable
minimum, and anytime you think I'm posting too much you tell me and I'll
knock off for the rest of the day. Is that fair enough?
BTW, I won't post for the next 24 hours, just to show that I'm sincere
about it.

That's fair. I'll do the same.

An excellent suggestion. I agree the best bet today is using CDs.
They are
cheap. A typical CD holds, what, 72 minutes of stereo data? That
comes out
to 36 mono tracks of four minutes, right? So a lot of projects may
fit on a
single CD. If not, splitting them to multiple CDs is not hard. If
there is
degradation of the medium, obviously the DVD will suffer before the
CD, so
it's safer (you said that already, right?).

Is that last statement true? If I had to guess, I'd guess that DVDR
will outlast CDR.

Norm Strong

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:20ead.216332$MQ5.105284@attbi_s52...

If there is
degradation of the medium, obviously the DVD will suffer before the
CD, so
it's safer (you said that already, right?).

Is that last statement true? If I had to guess, I'd guess that DVDR
will outlast CDR.

Here's how I see it. With CDs the data had to be written using large block
letters like a child would use. As the technology improved, it still used
large block letters, but it could be read while the disk was spinning 50
times faster. If there's a problem, the drive can just down.

A DVD uses really tiny letters. A very small "blemish" in the medium may
ruin multiple letters while the same blemish may only ruin part of a letter
on a CD. Likewise a CD would lose less data with the same physical damage
such as a scratch.

I'm admittedly pulling this out of my ass, but it seems reasonable on its
face.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:dwybd.5441$bk1.332@fed1read05...
| "normanstrong" wrote in message
| news:20ead.216332$MQ5.105284@attbi_s52...
|
| If there is
| degradation of the medium, obviously the DVD will suffer
before the
| CD, so
| it's safer (you said that already, right?).
|
| Is that last statement true? If I had to guess, I'd guess
that DVDR
| will outlast CDR.
|
| Here's how I see it. With CDs the data had to be written using
large block
| letters like a child would use. As the technology improved, it
still used
| large block letters, but it could be read while the disk was
spinning 50
| times faster. If there's a problem, the drive can just down.
|
| A DVD uses really tiny letters. A very small "blemish" in the
medium may
| ruin multiple letters while the same blemish may only ruin part
of a letter
| on a CD. Likewise a CD would lose less data with the same
physical damage
| such as a scratch.
|
| I'm admittedly pulling this out of my ass, but it seems
reasonable on its
| face.
|
|

Pretty good analogy, actually.

"Jim Carr" wrote in
news:dwybd.5441$bk1.332@fed1read05:

I'm admittedly pulling this out of my ass,

Not surprisingly, nothing new in that regard.


but it seems reasonable on its face.

As does everything that you pull out of your ass, but of course only to
you.

"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 7...
"Jim Carr" wrote in
news:dwybd.5441$bk1.332@fed1read05:

I'm admittedly pulling this out of my ass,

Not surprisingly, nothing new in that regard.


But it seems that you pulled yourself out of your own ass...

but it seems reasonable on its face.

As does everything that you pull out of your ass, but of course only to
you.


Actually, Mr Ghost, your ass would seem more reasonable on your face than
your face currently does, especially since you're constantly spouting
meaningless crap.