| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... I always record when I'm doing FOH, it only takes me a few more minutes to set up, I use the computer for a spectrum analyser anyway, and storage is no longer a real issue given the cost of hard disks now. I also store to DVD/s for backup. To me, that's a lot of work and expense that I'm not getting paid for. If it was a group that I particularly liked and I wanted to keep a recording for my personal listening enjoyment, I might do that, but not "always." I don't find it difficult, and I never know what I'll need, so I just keep it all. Most of it I want to keep for myself anyway, although I don't bother remixing and editing all of it. Sure, you can do that if you have to do both jobs yourself. Your primary responsibility, of course, is to the audience, so you need to pay full attention to that. Right. I find that this takes enough concentration so that I have zero time to pay attention to a recording. That's why I don't. It can all be done later, as long as I set things up properly. The advantage of having someone else work the recording setup, even if it's multitrack that will be mixed later. That way you can hear problems that might be fixable which don't affect the live sound and avoid bringing back useless or troublesome tracks. But if your recording is just on the basis of "maybe I can use it" then you do whatever makes sense for you. Exactly. And it's a live recording after all not a studio session. But IF the FOH sound is fine, there won't be any "useless tracks" unless I have stuffed up the initial recorder set up. I've possibly done that once in a few hundred recordings. And had the computer play up once many years ago. So all in all I've been very happy with what I've got for the time and money spent. I'm not arguing that keeping the recording and sound reinforcement totally independent is the only way to do it, that's how people who have to be sure to do a first rate job at both tasks do it. I don't disagree at all. I would too if I was being paid for a mission critical recording. That's not what I am usually paid for however. It's just an added possibility later. Trevor. |
|
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... Tapes from the 70s and 80s that haven't survived usually didn't survive because the owners didn't think they were worth saving. Record companies used to throw away or re-use master tapes all the time back then. Right, that's the high cost of tape and storage I mentioned. I was also thinking of all the problem tapes which baking may or may not partially "fix". The recorder and tape was already paid for Not so, I know people who never really "paid" for their recorders out of profits, and tape was a real big expense too if you wanted to archive it. and there was no cost after the recording was made. As long as you had no need for proper storage of tapes, or even not so proper storage costs money. You can store recordings on todays hard drives, complete with back-ups in about 1% of the space. No time to copy to another medium, Rubish, tape backups HAD to be done in real time, digital files take a few seconds per program hour! Oh you mean you didn't bother with tape back-ups because it was too difficult and too expensive, and reduced quality. I count that as a BAD thing! no cost for another medium, no worry about the project file format no longer working on a 30 year newer version of the program, no need to worry that a 30 year old program that you saved along with the tape will run on a modern computer. No you just have to worry if the tape has survived, and how nuch it is going to cost to repair that Studer, and IF you can possibly justify the expense now you hardly ever use it! :-( As I said, any fool can write a program to convert digital data without loss. I can even copy files from 5_1/4" 360kB floppies with less problem than analog tapes of the same age. Tape can be physically damaged, but so can hard drives and optical disks. Right, but digital data can be infinitely copied without loss, not so analog tapes. Tape does have some fidelity loss over time, but unless the oxide falls off (and this has indeed happened) Right! the tape can still be played many, many years after it was recorded. People don't tell us about hard drives that won't play because they're not old enough yet. But wait another ten years and you'll start hearing stories. Sure they are old enough, I have hard drives over 30YO, but I sure as hell don't use them for file storage any longer! Unlike analog tape I don't have to! Who cares now that we can make *infinite* IDENTICAL data copies, on whatever media is yet to be invented, whenever we need to, something you CANNOT do with analog tape!!!! I care, because it's one more thing I have to do for which I'm not getting paid. So you are saying you DO get paid to buy buy a new Studer and/or pay for repairs whenever necessary, pay for climate controlled tape storage, and paid to transcribe them to digital to be remastered? And paid to realign the heads of course, hell I spent just as nuch time fixing tape machines than I've ever spent tranferring digital files and fixing computers. Or are you really saying that it doesn't really matter whether you have analog or digital storage problems, because YOU are simply not interested in archiving anyway? I wonder how many analog tapes and tape players will have survived by 2041?? We have a pretty good track record so far. I'm glad you think so, but the same can be said for digital for those who actually know what they are doing. I've used both, and there's NO way I'm going back to analog recording! I wonder how many people will be able to play 1" or 2"" tapes in 2041 even IF they survive anyway? ALL archive libraries are busy transferring material to DIGITAL so it can be archived without further loss for as long as deemed worthwhile Tha'ts archive libraries. It's their JOB, and people working there get paid to do those transfers. So your work is not worth keeping? Well then you have NO problem. How the hell could you afford to pay for a Studer 1" tape machine as was suggested though. I would have thought digital was FAR better for anybody not interested in archiving as well as those who are! Since their job is also to be able to play anything that they have in storage, it's more cost effective for them to store digital copies in a single standard format and maintain the media than it is to store multiple analog formats and maintain the equipment to play them. Right, AND lossless "multiple analog formats" are not possible. Every copy suffers some loss. And maintaining analog equipment to play tape is another expense you can't afford. What you do with your own personal archive is up to you. How you pay for it is also up to you. Exactly, as is how you pay for a Studer tape recorder and tape. IF you do use it your gonna need repairs sooner or later, even IF you already own it and have already paid for it from your profits. The universal format currently is broadcast wave files, mostly 24-bit, mostly at 96 kHz sample rate. This preserves the audio content, but if you have a set of multitrack files which resulted in a final production, saving just the audio data doesn't save edits, processing, or the mix. Right, you need to save the final mix/edit as well, that's hardly an issue these days. This is what's standing in the way of moving a project from, say, a Pro Tools studio to a Nuendo studio, to a Logic studio, to a Reaper studio. A revived production created from nothing but the original WAV files will be a new mix and won't be identical to what originally was issued from those files. That's not what an archive does. A final digital mix is no different than a final analog mix, except that it is far cheaper to save any intermediate digital mixes IF you want, with no generational loss as with your analog mixes. You really haven't though this through have you? You seem to have a problem discriminating programs from data. NO live recording I have ever made relies on plugin's to recover the data, does yours? If so, simply re-render each track now while you still can. This is one way of making an archive version that's more universal. But still, you can't accurately re-create a mix without the file that instructs the DSP what do do when, and without the DSP (the right DAW program) to do it. No need since you can save as many as you like. But really what gets used 30 years down the track is the final mix, OR the original tracks are remixed/re-edited from scratch because someone thinks they can do better. Your whole argument does NOT provide ANY benefit from having analog tape as the original source in any case. That's no, This was then. If there was a clear advantage to using analog tape, then they'd still be making analog tape decks. Right, what is your argument again? The downside is how difficult it can be to play an obsolete format, and how quickly a format becomes obsolete. Nope, no digital RECORDING *format* has become untranscribable, and unlike analog recordings, digital tracks can be transferred quickly with no loss whenever necessary. I would bet my house that digital sound files are still able to be transcribed without loss, long after all analog tapes and players have become useless. We've had 2" 24 track recordings for 40 years and it's not dead yet. It's certainly pretty close! Not that I could ever afford one, 24 tracks of HIGHER quality digital is easily within my reach now however! :-) And I have 30 YO digital recordings that I'll bet money are usable long after all my analog tapes are unplayable anyway. But hey, keep using that Studer and buying more tape if that's what you really prefer. It won't affect me in the slightest, or millons of others either :-) Trevor. |
|
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Trevor wrote:
"david correia" wrote in message ... What you fail to note is that Hank's tape was never copied. It's original. And it's still doing it's job. Nope, I noticed that alright. I also noticed how many tapes from the seventies and eighties haven't survived. I've had to bake some Ampex, but not any of the Agfa, which is what we used once it showed up at our door for demo. Baking brought the tapes back and I don't think it took the equivalent time as would keeping all the data on evolving digital storage media accessible. Money is one thing I might get more of; time is not. I also noted how much the Studer cost and how much the tape cost. I think I spelled that all out very clearly if you care to re-read what I wrote. The Studer paid for itself within a reasonable period of time and remianed a viable tool for over thirty years. It still works nicely for the man who bought it to add to his stash of analog machines to play analog source material for conversion to modern formats. I probably won't live long enough to find out if the actual cost of the digital audio tools and data storage elements actually prove to be cheaper. Hollywood has been reeling heh at the cost of keeping digital media viable. Of course spinning hard drives won't be found in people's houses in 2041. Who cares now that we can make *infinite* IDENTICAL data copies, on whatever media is yet to be invented, whenever we need to, something you CANNOT do with analog tape!!!! I care. I'd rather work on new stuff than have to spend all my time or hire an assistant to keep up with this ephemeral storage technology. They'll likely be viewed in much the same way as Hank's 1" machine is today. You'll be copying over multiple storage formats just to be able to play a note. I wonder how many analog tapes and tape players will have survived by 2041?? ALL archive libraries are busy transferring material to DIGITAL so it can be archived without further loss for as long as deemed worthwhile, on as many copies as necessary, in as many locations as desireable. NONE of which can be done with original analog formats. One fire and the original is gone forever! And any analog back-ups are of lesser quality. And do you think Pro Tools 19 or whatever takes its place will still open PT 5.31 multitrack data? I surely think that ALL digital audio formats are sufficiently simple structure that the DATA can be transferred without loss, and any new program necessary to convert formats to whatever is required at any future date, will take a competent programmer no more than a few hours. Maybe that doesn't include you, but I know I can. And how about all those iLok protected plugins? You seem to have a problem discriminating programs from data. NO live recording I have ever made relies on plugin's to recover the data, does yours? If so, simply re-render each track now while you still can. I bet Autotune will still exist ; In fact there will be a Michael Jackson & a Frank Sinatra plug in. How would you like John Lennon or Sandy Denny singing background vocals for you? Yessss. Not sure what that has to do with the topic under discussion? I wonder what technology is gonna be like in 30 years. I likely won't be around to see it, tho. If you go back to 1981 & take a look, it's quite a revolution that has taken place. Well that was my point, I for one am glad it is no longer necessary to buy 1" Studer tape machines at HUGE expense to get decent multi-track recordings. Too bad humans haven't really changed much. We is still pretty dumbos. So true for many. Trevor. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
|
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/4/2011 2:05 AM, Trevor wrote: I also noticed how many tapes from the seventies and eighties haven't survived. I also noted how much the Studer cost and how much the tape cost. I think I spelled that all out very clearly if you care to re-read what I wrote. Tapes from the 70s and 80s that haven't survived usually didn't survive because the owners didn't think they were worth saving. Record companies used to throw away or re-use master tapes all the time back then. The recorder and tape was already paid for and there was no cost after the recording was made. No time to copy to another medium, no cost for another medium, no worry about the project file format no longer working on a 30 year newer version of the program, no need to worry that a 30 year old program that you saved along with the tape will run on a modern computer. Tape can be physically damaged, but so can hard drives and optical disks. Tape does have some fidelity loss over time, but unless the oxide falls off (and this has indeed happened) the tape can still be played many, many years after it was recorded. People don't tell us about hard drives that won't play because they're not old enough yet. But wait another ten years and you'll start hearing stories. Who cares now that we can make *infinite* IDENTICAL data copies, on whatever media is yet to be invented, whenever we need to, something you CANNOT do with analog tape!!!! I care, because it's one more thing I have to do for which I'm not getting paid. Hey, if your time is free, how about painting my house? I wonder how many analog tapes and tape players will have survived by 2041?? We have a pretty good track record so far. Scott Dorsey, for instance, has playable tapes from way back before the master I mentioned. My oldest tapes are from the mid-'60's and they still play. ALL archive libraries are busy transferring material to DIGITAL so it can be archived without further loss for as long as deemed worthwhile Tha'ts archive libraries. It's their JOB, and people working there get paid to do those transfers. Since their job is also to be able to play anything that they have in storage, it's more cost effective for them to store digital copies in a single standard format and maintain the media than it is to store multiple analog formats and maintain the equipment to play them. What you do with your own personal archive is up to you. How you pay for it is also up to you. And do you think Pro Tools 19 or whatever takes its place will still open PT 5.31 multitrack data? I surely think that ALL digital audio formats are sufficiently simple structure that the DATA can be transferred without loss, and any new program necessary to convert formats to whatever is required at any future date, will take a competent programmer no more than a few hours. The universal format currently is broadcast wave files, mostly 24-bit, mostly at 96 kHz sample rate. This preserves the audio content, but if you have a set of multitrack files which resulted in a final production, saving just the audio data doesn't save edits, processing, or the mix. This is what's standing in the way of moving a project from, say, a Pro Tools studio to a Nuendo studio, to a Logic studio, to a Reaper studio. A revived production created from nothing but the original WAV files will be a new mix and won't be identical to what originally was issued from those files. That's not what an archive does. You seem to have a problem discriminating programs from data. NO live recording I have ever made relies on plugin's to recover the data, does yours? If so, simply re-render each track now while you still can. This is one way of making an archive version that's more universal. But still, you can't accurately re-create a mix without the file that instructs the DSP what do do when, and without the DSP (the right DAW program) to do it. Well that was my point, I for one am glad it is no longer necessary to buy 1" Studer tape machines at HUGE expense to get decent multi-track recordings. That's no, This was then. If there was a clear advantage to using analog tape, then they'd still be making analog tape decks. Sure, the world is changing. We get some things better and some things worse out of it. The upside is lower cost and (if you spend enough money) better first generation fidelity. The downside is how difficult it can be to play an obsolete format, and how quickly a format becomes obsolete. We've had 2" 24 track recordings for 40 years and it's not dead yet. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Given the cost of a 1" Studer and the cost of tape, (let's not even consider the cost of temperature/humidity controlled storage for tape if you expect to use it in 30 years, many didn't make it that long) you could transfer files to a new hard drive every year (and even pay someone to do it for you), and still have a LOT of change left over! Right, but no one does. That's the problem. Some DO, probably FAR more than keep their tapes in climate controlled storage, along with a tape machine (and spares) to play them on. IF you have no need for archiving then you don't care either way. Those that actually DO archiving prefer digital. Trevor. |
|
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"hank alrich" wrote in message ... I care. I'd rather work on new stuff than have to spend all my time or hire an assistant to keep up with this ephemeral storage technology. Right, so it makes no difference what you record on then, but the ONLY reason AFAIC to use a Studer for new recordings is if you already own it, reuse tapes, and actually prefer the analog distortions. So tell me do YOU still record everything to analog tape, or is your agument really superfluous? Trevor. |
|
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Given the cost of a 1" Studer and the cost of tape, (let's not even consider the cost of temperature/humidity controlled storage for tape if you expect to use it in 30 years, many didn't make it that long) you could transfer files to a new hard drive every year (and even pay someone to do it for you), and still have a LOT of change left over! Right, but no one does. That's the problem. Some DO, probably FAR more than keep their tapes in climate controlled storage, along with a tape machine (and spares) to play them on. IF you have no need for archiving then you don't care either way. Those that actually DO archiving prefer digital. You might want to check the LoC guidelines before you make that last statement.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Trevor wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message ... I care. I'd rather work on new stuff than have to spend all my time or hire an assistant to keep up with this ephemeral storage technology. Right, so it makes no difference what you record on then, but the ONLY reason AFAIC to use a Studer for new recordings is if you already own it, reuse tapes, and actually prefer the analog distortions. So tell me do YOU still record everything to analog tape, or is your agument really superfluous? I still record most stuff to analogue tape myself, but I'm in the minority. Still, you will see a lot of studios recording on digital systems but making safety copies on 2". You'll also still see a lot of record contracts that require a 2" safety to be provided. It's expensive, but so is data loss. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
|
|
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Recording?
Il 27/07/2011 21.47, Paul ha scritto:
I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for remote recording live bands. But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for certain reasons. Perhaps times have changed? laptops works fine nowadays but in my opinion the hardware solution like alesis hd24 is still better because the computer platform adds a big complexity to the simple task of recording and this, sometimes, can lead to problems. Let's imagine your laptop decide to upadate the antivirus database while recording, or it try to install an automatic upgrade. Ok you can configure the laptop to do nothing unless you specifically ask to do, but the complexity is huge and is easy to forget something. Then, the laptop solution is phisychally weaker because you need an audio device plugged to the electricity outlet, then connected to the computer that is connected to the electrical source too. basically more potential sources of problems are there. keep in mind that a HD24 (24 tracks 44100/24 bits) is priced around $1500 right now and this is much less than any 24 trks computer based solution available. alex |
|
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/4/2011 8:50 AM, anahata wrote:
If you're arguing for analog storage, you can't save mixing and processing info with that either. Saving a copy of the mix alongside the multitracks is the nearest you can get with digital or analogue, except that with digital there's some chance that if you also store the mix information there *might* still be software in the future that can read it. You're correct of course. I'm not arguing "for" analog storage, I'm only saying that if that's what you have, it will probably last as long as you need it. There's no compelling reason to copy it to digital media other than to have another copy (which is never a bad idea). But you'll probably need to refresh that digital copy more often than you'll have to refresh the analog original. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/4/2011 10:19 AM, Trevor wrote:
I was also thinking of all the problem tapes which baking may or may not partially "fix". Baking isn't the only solution and what it fixes isn't the only problem that can occur with tape. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. It's true that some tapes can't be played normally. If you have one, you need to decide how badly you want to play it. There are specialists in the field who can probably play it where you can't. If it's worth $1000 to hear your great grandmother sing again, you can. The recorder and tape was already paid for Not so, I know people who never really "paid" for their recorders out of profits, and tape was a real big expense too if you wanted to archive it. Well, I know people who have hundreds of dollars, maybe even a couple of thousand, tied up in a digital recording system that they've never paid for either. But in the day when you needed a real analog tape recorder to be a real recording studio in a real business, most business plans assured that the recorder would be paid for in a reasonable amount of time. And the clients pay for the tape. It's their choice what to do with it after they've finished the initial project. Of course there are all kinds of businesses that fail because they couldn't make it pay. and there was no cost after the recording was made. As long as you had no need for proper storage of tapes, or even not so proper storage costs money. You can store recordings on todays hard drives, complete with back-ups in about 1% of the space. Why should I (in the recording business) store tapes or drives at all, for projects that have been completed? That's for the client to do. If the client wants me to store his project, I'm inclined to charge for it. Nothing comes for free, but with digital, there seems to be that perception. Rubish, tape backups HAD to be done in real time, digital files take a few seconds per program hour! Certainly not a few seconds per program hour. Maybe if it's a stereo MP3 file. If it's all the garbage you've saved for a 147 track project, maybe half an hour once you get things set up. The point is that you have to do it, and it takes time to get started. Unless of course you're an archive facility and you're doing this all the time. Oh you mean you didn't bother with tape back-ups because it was too difficult and too expensive, and reduced quality. I count that as a BAD thing! I would always suggest making a safety copy of the mix before sending the master off to be pressed. The client usually agreed, and paid for it. No problems. As I said, any fool can write a program to convert digital data without loss. Not me. Sure they are old enough, I have hard drives over 30YO, but I sure as hell don't use them for file storage any longer! Why not? Because you no longer have anything to connect them to, I'll bet. What are you going to do if you actually need them? So you are saying you DO get paid to buy buy a new Studer and/or pay for repairs whenever necessary, pay for climate controlled tape storage, and paid to transcribe them to digital to be remastered? At one time I did (though it was an Ampex, not a Studer), all of that except the climate controlled storage and I paid for repairs with my time and the cost of parts. You probably do the same when your computers need repair. Maybe you were born too late to ever know the time when people actually paid to have other people record them. Studios were the place where there were people who knew how to operate and maintain the equipment, they invested in the equipment, and they charged for their services. Today, you can still find paid recording studios, and that's the place where you find the analog recorders available for those who want to use them in their projects. But most people record themselves in a spare bedroom for a tiny investment in equipment and no cost for labor (unless you consider that you could be making $150/hour writing software instead of recording for free). So what you keep, what you throw away, and in what form is entirely a personal decision. Or are you really saying that it doesn't really matter whether you have analog or digital storage problems, because YOU are simply not interested in archiving anyway? I'm not an archivist. I wonder how many people will be able to play 1" or 2"" tapes in 2041 even IF they survive anyway? Does it matter? As long as there are enough that's all there needs to be. How many people will be able to open a Pro Tools version 4 project in 2041? Or even in 2011? So your work is not worth keeping? Most of it, no, not for me. I do most of my recording digitally today, but I delete a lot more than what I save, and what I save is almost always in an easily playable format like a CD. If I don't care to listen to it, I don't see any reason to save it. Now if I make a recording for someone else, it's his or her choice if, how, and for how long they store it. But storage isn't my job. I record. How the hell could you afford to pay for a Studer 1" tape machine By keeping fairly busy and charging people $50/hour. How much do you charge for recoridng? Right, AND lossless "multiple analog formats" are not possible. Every copy suffers some loss. People talk about the loss of making multiple generations of analog but every multitrack analog recording is at least third generation by the time it gets pressed. And so what if there's a little loss? Who cares? I care more about having a disk on the shelf that I forgot to copy to a new format and now I can't play it at all. Or I have to rebuild the hard drive that I take off the shelf because it's time to re-copy it, find that it doesn't work, and hope I can recover what's on it. A final digital mix is no different than a final analog mix, except that it is far cheaper to save any intermediate digital mixes IF you want, with no generational loss as with your analog mixes. You really haven't though this through have you? I've thought it through, and I finish a project and then it's done. What happens to it in 30 years is someone else's problem. If I recorded it digitally, I'll be happy to hand over the drives to the client (as long as he's paid for the media). I can give him documentation as to what he has and advise him about storage and archiving, but it's not my problem. It's not my job. I don't do this. But really what gets used 30 years down the track is the final mix, OR the original tracks are remixed/re-edited from scratch because someone thinks they can do better. So just to be sure, you'd better save everything. But sometimes you want to re-create the original mix and just to it with better equipment. Your whole argument does NOT provide ANY benefit from having analog tape as the original source in any case. I was never arguing that it was better. I was only commenting that if I have an analog tape, I don't feel compelled to go out of my way to make a digital copy of it until I need it. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/4/2011 10:23 AM, Trevor wrote:
IF you have no need for archiving then you don't care either way. Those that actually DO archiving prefer digital. Do you have an actual need for archiving? What is it? Or do you just feel that you should do it, so you do because it isn't much of an inconvenience? -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/4/2011 12:35 PM, wrote:
I think somebody on the pro-audio list used to use this as part of his sig file. I've got to paraphrase as I can't remember the exact verbiage, but he said that the main problem with storage technology was the ability to lose larger and larger amounts of data at one fell swoop. That was me, and the quote is: "Understanding storage technology is not difficult. It is an ongoing process whereby larger and larger amounts of information can be lost by smaller and smaller mishaps." I can't remember where I put that one. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On Thu 2011-Aug-04 16:37, Mike Rivers writes:
On 8/4/2011 12:35 PM, wrote: I think somebody on the pro-audio list used to use this as part of his sig file. I've got to paraphrase as I can't remember the exact verbiage, but he said that the main problem with storage technology was the ability to lose larger and larger amounts of data at one fell swoop. That was me, and the quote is: "Understanding storage technology is not difficult. It is an ongoing process whereby larger and larger amounts of information can be lost by smaller and smaller mishaps." YEp, that's the one! hmmm I didn't think you were seeing my albisani posts there for awhile g. LIke you I capture it. What the client does with it after that is his/her/its problem. Until they burned I had mixes and recording done on a REvox a77 that still played good, I think I had to bake some 456 myself, and had spent some time moving some of it to dat and was migrating it to cd-r with a masterlink when Katrina took it all. Thanks for the memory refresher. Regards, Richard .... Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel when it's not. -- | 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. |
|
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
In article ,
"Trevor" wrote: "david correia" wrote in message ... What you fail to note is that Hank's tape was never copied. It's original. And it's still doing it's job. Nope, I noticed that alright. I also noticed how many tapes from the seventies and eighties haven't survived. I haven't, and I have been transferring from analog tape professionally for clients since 1981. I cannot think of one time where the tape hasn't "survived". Plenty of the players on them haven't ; And that's included masters stored in unheated attics here in the Northeast that for years would bake in the summer and get really cold in the winter. The hairiest tapes I had to deal with were some Sony 601 masters that used video tape. I had to use a couple different vcr's & keep my fingers crossed. And of course, this was digital, not analog, recording. Finding a 601 wasn't hard. About 5 years ago a guy came in with a no name mono cassette he'd recorded from the fields in Vietnam, ramblings sent home to his mom & family. To my surprise, that sucker played back perfectly. And do you think Pro Tools 19 or whatever takes its place will still open PT 5.31 multitrack data? I surely think that ALL digital audio formats are sufficiently simple structure that the DATA can be transferred without loss, and any new program necessary to convert formats to whatever is required at any future date, will take a competent programmer no more than a few hours. Maybe that doesn't include you, but I know I can. Look inside a typical PT audio files folder. It contains hundreds & hundreds of little pieces of audio. You would never be able to put Humpty together again. It already happens to people today. Nor you would ever know which pieces from the many lead vocal takes were the right ones. Once I was finally comfortable with the sound of PT - PT HD - within a year I sold my 2" and never looked back. I love how I can screw with stuff inside PT. I have three 1/4" tape machines I expect to sell this year. I ain't in love with them. But I do not believe it will be simple to open a PT 5.31 session in 2041. I had many 8 second System snippets of my then little kids recorded with that cheezy disc microphone that Apple shipped with early Macs. They'd have a blast horsing around and broke probably 8 of those cheap mics. And I was unable to get that wierd data format to play on any Mac today. I had to dust off an ancient Mac to get them. David Correia www.Celebrationsound.com |
|
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/4/2011 10:19 AM, Trevor wrote: I was also thinking of all the problem tapes which baking may or may not partially "fix". Baking isn't the only solution and what it fixes isn't the only problem that can occur with tape. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. It's true that some tapes can't be played normally. If you have one, you need to decide how badly you want to play it. There are specialists in the field who can probably play it where you can't. If it's worth $1000 to hear your great grandmother sing again, you can. For mild cases, I have found that cleaning the tape with Isopropyl alcohol and then keeping it damp whilst playing it will allow it to run through without sticking to the heads. Keep the windows open and a fire extinguisher handy. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
|
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/4/2011 1:32 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/4/2011 10:19 AM, Trevor wrote: I was also thinking of all the problem tapes which baking may or may not partially "fix". Baking isn't the only solution and what it fixes isn't the only problem that can occur with tape. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. It's true that some tapes can't be played normally. If you have one, you need to decide how badly you want to play it. There are specialists in the field who can probably play it where you can't. If it's worth $1000 to hear your great grandmother sing again, you can. The recorder and tape was already paid for Not so, I know people who never really "paid" for their recorders out of profits, and tape was a real big expense too if you wanted to archive it. Well, I know people who have hundreds of dollars, maybe even a couple of thousand, tied up in a digital recording system that they've never paid for either. But in the day when you needed a real analog tape recorder to be a real recording studio in a real business, most business plans assured that the recorder would be paid for in a reasonable amount of time. And the clients pay for the tape. It's their choice what to do with it after they've finished the initial project. Of course there are all kinds of businesses that fail because they couldn't make it pay. and there was no cost after the recording was made. As long as you had no need for proper storage of tapes, or even not so proper storage costs money. You can store recordings on todays hard drives, complete with back-ups in about 1% of the space. Why should I (in the recording business) store tapes or drives at all, for projects that have been completed? That's for the client to do. If the client wants me to store his project, I'm inclined to charge for it. Nothing comes for free, but with digital, there seems to be that perception. Rubish, tape backups HAD to be done in real time, digital files take a few seconds per program hour! Certainly not a few seconds per program hour. Maybe if it's a stereo MP3 file. If it's all the garbage you've saved for a 147 track project, maybe half an hour once you get things set up. The point is that you have to do it, and it takes time to get started. Unless of course you're an archive facility and you're doing this all the time. Oh you mean you didn't bother with tape back-ups because it was too difficult and too expensive, and reduced quality. I count that as a BAD thing! I would always suggest making a safety copy of the mix before sending the master off to be pressed. The client usually agreed, and paid for it. No problems. As I said, any fool can write a program to convert digital data without loss. Not me. Sure they are old enough, I have hard drives over 30YO, but I sure as hell don't use them for file storage any longer! Why not? Because you no longer have anything to connect them to, I'll bet. What are you going to do if you actually need them? So you are saying you DO get paid to buy buy a new Studer and/or pay for repairs whenever necessary, pay for climate controlled tape storage, and paid to transcribe them to digital to be remastered? At one time I did (though it was an Ampex, not a Studer), all of that except the climate controlled storage and I paid for repairs with my time and the cost of parts. You probably do the same when your computers need repair. Maybe you were born too late to ever know the time when people actually paid to have other people record them. Studios were the place where there were people who knew how to operate and maintain the equipment, they invested in the equipment, and they charged for their services. Today, you can still find paid recording studios, and that's the place where you find the analog recorders available for those who want to use them in their projects. But most people record themselves in a spare bedroom for a tiny investment in equipment and no cost for labor (unless you consider that you could be making $150/hour writing software instead of recording for free). So what you keep, what you throw away, and in what form is entirely a personal decision. Or are you really saying that it doesn't really matter whether you have analog or digital storage problems, because YOU are simply not interested in archiving anyway? I'm not an archivist. I wonder how many people will be able to play 1" or 2"" tapes in 2041 even IF they survive anyway? Does it matter? As long as there are enough that's all there needs to be. How many people will be able to open a Pro Tools version 4 project in 2041? Or even in 2011? I am able to open a Photoshop CS3 file into an old Photoshop 5.0 LE application, which is circa 1998. There is a warning when you fist open it up, that some of the data will be discarded, but the file works fine once opened. I assume the discarded data was extra functionally in CS3, that the older version doesn't know what to do with. Programmers try to utilize backwards compatibility as much as they can. Anyone really serious about saving mix, pan, and eq information is going to re-open their version of Protools in the next, latest version, and re-save under the new version. There shouldn't be a problem doing this, and at any rate, as someone else mentioned, someone else is likely gonna re-mix the music anyways, so the raw audio data is the most important info anyways. Hard drives have a usable life expectancy of about 5 years or so, so anyone who is serious about archiving their data is gonna transfer everything to a new drive(s). Technology moves fast, and SATA will likely make IDE extinct, but in the meantime, there is plenty of time to make transfers. Everything is going digital, there is no doubt. So your work is not worth keeping? Most of it, no, not for me. I do most of my recording digitally today, but I delete a lot more than what I save, and what I save is almost always in an easily playable format like a CD. If I don't care to listen to it, I don't see any reason to save it. Now if I make a recording for someone else, it's his or her choice if, how, and for how long they store it. But storage isn't my job. I record. How the hell could you afford to pay for a Studer 1" tape machine By keeping fairly busy and charging people $50/hour. How much do you charge for recoridng? Right, AND lossless "multiple analog formats" are not possible. Every copy suffers some loss. People talk about the loss of making multiple generations of analog but every multitrack analog recording is at least third generation by the time it gets pressed. And so what if there's a little loss? Who cares? I care more about having a disk on the shelf that I forgot to copy to a new format and now I can't play it at all. Or I have to rebuild the hard drive that I take off the shelf because it's time to re-copy it, find that it doesn't work, and hope I can recover what's on it. A final digital mix is no different than a final analog mix, except that it is far cheaper to save any intermediate digital mixes IF you want, with no generational loss as with your analog mixes. You really haven't though this through have you? I've thought it through, and I finish a project and then it's done. What happens to it in 30 years is someone else's problem. If I recorded it digitally, I'll be happy to hand over the drives to the client (as long as he's paid for the media). I can give him documentation as to what he has and advise him about storage and archiving, but it's not my problem. It's not my job. I don't do this. But really what gets used 30 years down the track is the final mix, OR the original tracks are remixed/re-edited from scratch because someone thinks they can do better. So just to be sure, you'd better save everything. But sometimes you want to re-create the original mix and just to it with better equipment. Your whole argument does NOT provide ANY benefit from having analog tape as the original source in any case. I was never arguing that it was better. I was only commenting that if I have an analog tape, I don't feel compelled to go out of my way to make a digital copy of it until I need it. |
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
david correia wrote:
I had many 8 second System snippets of my then little kids recorded with that cheezy disc microphone that Apple shipped with early Macs. They'd have a blast horsing around and broke probably 8 of those cheap mics. And I was unable to get that wierd data format to play on any Mac today. I had to dust off an ancient Mac to get them. Those things were actually designed by a big-name acoustical designer that Apple hired. It's been a long time since Apple has done that, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
In article , Paul wrote:
I am able to open a Photoshop CS3 file into an old Photoshop 5.0 LE application, which is circa 1998. There is a warning when you fist open it up, that some of the data will be discarded, but the file works fine once opened. I assume the discarded data was extra functionally in CS3, that the older version doesn't know what to do with. Try and open up a Word 5 file sometime. Programmers try to utilize backwards compatibility as much as they can. Anyone really serious about saving mix, pan, and eq information is going to re-open their version of Protools in the next, latest version, and re-save under the new version. There shouldn't be a problem doing this, and at any rate, as someone else mentioned, someone else is likely gonna re-mix the music anyways, so the raw audio data is the most important info anyways. Unfortunately you can't always do this. Already we are running into issues these days with people bringing in old projects from ancient versions of Protools. I am a big fan of backward compatibility and I am a great enemy of feature bloat, but unfortunately the friendly people at Avid do not contact me when they do product research. The ONLY way we get effective and true backward compatibility is by having published interchange standards and by demanding vendors follow them. Right now we DO have Broadcast Wave and that's a big deal, but it's only part of the whole suite of media format standards that we need to have. Hard drives have a usable life expectancy of about 5 years or so, so anyone who is serious about archiving their data is gonna transfer everything to a new drive(s). Technology moves fast, and SATA will likely make IDE extinct, but in the meantime, there is plenty of time to make transfers. Right, the problem is that often data winds up in the hands of people who don't care about it for a long time. I spend a large amount of my time dealing with media that have been stored in someone's basement or attic for years "because nobody cares about that old music anymore." Everything is going digital, there is no doubt. Yes, and this is a good thing. I am very happy that everything is going digital, what I am not happy about is that people are neglecting very critical parts of the media life cycle in the process. I'm one of the folks who wind up having to deal with those problems when they get neglected. The good news is that it's surprisingly profitable. The bad news is that it's surprisingly expensive. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Trevor wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message ... I care. I'd rather work on new stuff than have to spend all my time or hire an assistant to keep up with this ephemeral storage technology. Right, so it makes no difference what you record on then, but the ONLY reason AFAIC to use a Studer for new recordings is if you already own it, reuse tapes, and actually prefer the analog distortions. So tell me do YOU still record everything to analog tape, or is your agument really superfluous? Trevor. Tell me, do you just like to argue until you're purple in the face or do you have something relevant to contribute? Reading is fundamental. The answer to your questions are already contained in the thread, which from a casual comment I made about wire connecting to a Studer, you have dragged into a morass of bull**** about what you think. At some point nobody gives a **** what you think, not that there's anything wrong with what you're thinking. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
|
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Given the cost of a 1" Studer and the cost of tape, (let's not even consider the cost of temperature/humidity controlled storage for tape if you expect to use it in 30 years, many didn't make it that long) you could transfer files to a new hard drive every year (and even pay someone to do it for you), and still have a LOT of change left over! Right, but no one does. That's the problem. Some DO, probably FAR more than keep their tapes in climate controlled storage, along with a tape machine (and spares) to play them on. IF you have no need for archiving then you don't care either way. Those that actually DO archiving prefer digital. Trevor. I'e kept the tapes, am still using them to generate product, and have the stereo machine to which most of the masters were mixed. If/when I want to move the mutlis to the digital realm I'll hand them off to Steve Puntolillo for that. We still need for a few decades to pass before we start praising the incontrovertible durability of digital storage. I will retain the analog tapes even if they get transferred to a "modern" storage system. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
|
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
hank alrich wrote:
We still need for a few decades to pass before we start praising the incontrovertible durability of digital storage. I will retain the analog tapes even if they get transferred to a "modern" storage system. And of course we have all the digital tape formats which have the tape issues and the digital issues combined. I have a good friend with a bunch of 32-track 3M digital tapes. As far as any of can figure, there are no machines to play them back at all... they are very different than standard DASH or Mitsubishi formats. And nobody made analogue safeties. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Mike Rivers wrote:
Why should I (in the recording business) store tapes or drives at all, for projects that have been completed? That's for the client to do. If the client wants me to store his project, I'm inclined to charge for it. Nothing comes for free, but with digital, there seems to be that perception. We've been having Jerry Tubb at Terra Nova Digital Audio in Austin do our mastering. Terra Nova provides an archive service for a modest fee, and we purchase that service. Our own "backups" are on CDR or DVDR media, and I'll xfer those to my own HD's. In fact, some of Jerry's customers, among the most serious about keeping viable versions of their work, will have him record the final master to stereo analog tape, too. I am more interested now in making music than in running an archive. Keeping decent care of analog tapes has proven, in my life, to be a very practical method of archiving. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
|
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Paul wrote:
Hard drives have a usable life expectancy of about 5 years or so, so anyone who is serious about archiving their data is gonna transfer everything to a new drive(s). Technology moves fast, and SATA will likely make IDE extinct, but in the meantime, there is plenty of time to make transfers. At my age there probably isn't plenty of time for anything. So I make choices about how I spend my time, and beyond ruotine backup of my computer and a few drives, I'm not an archivist. I am a musician and producer again, and much less a recordist and mixer. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
|
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/4/2011 12:35 PM, wrote: I think somebody on the pro-audio list used to use this as part of his sig file. I've got to paraphrase as I can't remember the exact verbiage, but he said that the main problem with storage technology was the ability to lose larger and larger amounts of data at one fell swoop. That was me, and the quote is: "Understanding storage technology is not difficult. It is an ongoing process whereby larger and larger amounts of information can be lost by smaller and smaller mishaps." Beautifully stated, Mike. I can't remember where I put that one. I think it's lodged in a bright corner of your mind. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
|
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On Fri 2011-Aug-05 10:49, hank alrich writes:
I've kept the tapes, am still using them to generate product, and have the stereo machine to which most of the masters were mixed. If/when I want to move the mutlis to the digital realm I'll hand them off to Steve Puntolillo for that. Indeed, let somebody with the tools etc. do that work. YOu can conentrate your efforts on creating new product g. We still need for a few decades to pass before we start praising the incontrovertible durability of digital storage. I will retain the analog tapes even if they get transferred to a "modern" storage system. INdeed, I wasn't throwing out the two track masters I was transferring to digital before Katrina either. I was even planning on finding somebody with 4 track and dbx decode to handle some old 4 track stuff I had in storage, that was possibly going to need to be baked first, since a lot of it was 456 and Scotch 226. NEver got around to it. The long term viability of any storage format is a hotly debated topic in many forums these days. WAs just a pretty good thread a couple months back on the pro-audio list regarding those issues. HOwever, I don't think the op was as interested in the storage and archival battle as he was the basics of getting a good recording system going for the field. Like a lot of relative newbies he has more concern for what he's going to store it on than the chain to it, which is where Hank, Scott, Mike and I were taking him. 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. |
|
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/5/2011 9:48 AM, Paul wrote:
I am able to open a Photoshop CS3 file into an old Photoshop 5.0 LE application, Programmers try to utilize backwards compatibility as much as they can. But we're not talking about Photoshop. I don't have anything that will make sense of a Wordstar file. I used that a lot until about 1990. I have a lot of Wordstar files on floppy disks, fortunately none that I've had to open. Anyone really serious about saving mix, pan, and eq information is going to re-open their version of Protools in the next, latest version, and re-save under the new version. That's assuming they have the next version. But suppose they've abandoned Pro Tools and used Nuendo for 5 years. And the 'next version' trick doesn't always work. Lots of Sonic users were pretty upset when they upgraded one day and files that they worked on the day before wouldn't open. Sonic did come to their rescue, but that's a lot of mastering work that didn't get out for a few days. someone else is likely gonna re-mix the music anyways, so the raw audio data is the most important info anyways. Sure, there are times when you'll replace the drums and add a rap part and such, but other times you want to start out with the mix that the band and producer heard when they made the record and just clean up some things. Hard drives have a usable life expectancy of about 5 years or so, so anyone who is serious about archiving their data is gonna transfer everything to a new drive(s). I don't know about your 5 year estimate. I've had many drives in service for more than 5 years. I replace them when I need more space and don't want to fool with external drives. SATA will likely make IDE extinct, but in the meantime, there is plenty of time to make transfers. Yeah, but you have to do it. You can't just do the logical thing of putting the drive in storage and hook it up if you need it again. You can do that with paper. Tape has a history of 50 years or more where you can do that, phonograph records go back 100 years. And I'll bet that in 20 years, it'll be easier to find an analog tape deck than a computer with an IDE interface and BIOS that will recognize a 30 year old drive. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
|
#110
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On Fri 2011-Aug-05 12:06, hank alrich writes:
snip We've been having Jerry Tubb at Terra Nova Digital Audio in Austin do our mastering. Terra Nova provides an archive service for a modest fee, and we purchase that service. snip In fact, some of Jerry's customers, among the most serious about keeping viable versions of their work, will have him record the final master to stereo analog tape, too. I can understand why. I am more interested now in making music than in running an archive. Keeping decent care of analog tapes has proven, in my life, to be a very practical method of archiving. INdeed, and I think a lot of the sort of clients I want will grow to understand this even more and more, and why another 2" machine will eventually go in the remote truck when I can afford to acquire one. YEs digital has many advantages, but long term archival which can be reliably gotten at decades down the road is still in the future. AS I commented earlier in this thread, I still had some reels of 1/4 inch four track I'd have liked toe revisit someday for possible gems, if nothing else to rediscover a creation I'd forgotten. I'd love to be able to sell my clients their hard disk from their performance as well as the 2" analog as well. Regards, Richard .... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com -- | 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. |
|
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
My two cents... laptops have 2 years shorter average life cycle than
desktop computers. (3 years vs 5, generally). Especially laptops sold at mega-chains where every dollar saved on quality parts and workmanship counts. If you are taking costly computer gear to a new business venture which doesn't offer a whole lot of income in the first place (you are just trying to break into the market, competing on price, right?) it's a question if the cost will be recouped before computer gear starts to fail. Not that I'd want to discourage anyone's business aspirations, but I think a high-tech + low income business idea is probably much less fruitful startup concept than a low-tech + high income start of any other permutation of the two. Sure, there was a dot-com bubble era when two guys with a laptop sold for millions mere business ideas about online pet grooming and celery inventory, but those times are probably over. These days the focus isn't "starting a service with a laptop" as "starting a service people really want and will pay well" - its laptop requirement or lack of requirement being incidental. So the gist of the question really ought to be what's *your*, not the laptops' strength. |
|
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/5/2011 3:22 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/5/2011 9:48 AM, Paul wrote: I am able to open a Photoshop CS3 file into an old Photoshop 5.0 LE application, Programmers try to utilize backwards compatibility as much as they can. But we're not talking about Photoshop. I don't have anything that will make sense of a Wordstar file. I used that a lot until about 1990. I have a lot of Wordstar files on floppy disks, fortunately none that I've had to open. Apparently, there are still ways to convert those files to open in Microsoft Word: http://www.google.com/search?q=words...ient=firefox-a Anyone really serious about saving mix, pan, and eq information is going to re-open their version of Protools in the next, latest version, and re-save under the new version. That's assuming they have the next version. But suppose they've abandoned Pro Tools and used Nuendo for 5 years. And the 'next version' trick doesn't always work. Lots of Sonic users were pretty upset when they upgraded one day and files that they worked on the day before wouldn't open. Sonic did come to their rescue, but that's a lot of mastering work that didn't get out for a few days. Protools appears reasonably backwards compatible, i.e., older version files will open in the next upgraded version. If someone were serious about keeping their files up to date, it can be done. someone else is likely gonna re-mix the music anyways, so the raw audio data is the most important info anyways. Sure, there are times when you'll replace the drums and add a rap part and such, but other times you want to start out with the mix that the band and producer heard when they made the record and just clean up some things. Not if the CD has already gone to press, and everyone has the first version. People mostly re-master, but not re-mix. If they re-mix, they'll likely want the raw audio data. Hard drives have a usable life expectancy of about 5 years or so, so anyone who is serious about archiving their data is gonna transfer everything to a new drive(s). I don't know about your 5 year estimate. I've had many drives in service for more than 5 years. I replace them when I need more space and don't want to fool with external drives. I have drives that are more than 5 years in service too, but if you don't want to ever deal with a hard drive going bad on you, you ought to replace them after 5-7 years or so. SATA will likely make IDE extinct, but in the meantime, there is plenty of time to make transfers. Yeah, but you have to do it. You can't just do the logical thing of putting the drive in storage and hook it up if you need it again. You can do that with paper. Tape has a history of 50 years or more where you can do that, phonograph records go back 100 years. And I'll bet that in 20 years, it'll be easier to find an analog tape deck than a computer with an IDE interface and BIOS that will recognize a 30 year old drive. I doubt that. Especially since we are talking about the Studer tape machine, and not just any tape deck. Old computers are still around, and will stay around. I know, because I have some of them. IDE interfaces aren't going to disappear overnight! There are plenty of computers like mine, that have both SATA and IDE and USB interfaces, and with the advent of the external USB portable drive, it's a piece of cake to back things up. Yes, you have to work a bit at archiving anything, but in the digital world, that means upgrading to newer and better storage media. So if you do it properly, you'll never have a 30 year old drive...you'll have transfered a PERFECT COPY of everything, and tossed it in the trash a long time ago. I still have records, but I don't play them anymore. I still use my cassette player occasionally, but only on the tapes that still play well, which is becoming fewer and fewer... |
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Recording?
"alex" wrote in message ... laptops works fine nowadays but in my opinion the hardware solution like alesis hd24 is still better because the computer platform adds a big complexity to the simple task of recording and this, sometimes, can lead to problems. Let's imagine your laptop decide to upadate the antivirus database while recording, or it try to install an automatic upgrade. Let's imagine you know what you are doing and *at least* disable automatic updates, and anything else that may start or take over the computer uninvited! But since you are comparing to dedicated devices, one simply disables ALL network access, ALL background tasks, and ALL antivirus programs etc, IF you want a fair comparison. Ok you can configure the laptop to do nothing unless you specifically ask to do, but the complexity is huge For you maybe, many others have no problem. keep in mind that a HD24 (24 tracks 44100/24 bits) is priced around $1500 right now and this is much less than any 24 trks computer based solution available. No it's not, and it's not as versatile. But it is obviously an option that should be considered when making your own choices based on your own requirements and you own level of competence. Trevor. |
|
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
In article , Paul wrote:
That's assuming they have the next version. But suppose they've abandoned Pro Tools and used Nuendo for 5 years. And the 'next version' trick doesn't always work. Lots of Sonic users were pretty upset when they upgraded one day and files that they worked on the day before wouldn't open. Sonic did come to their rescue, but that's a lot of mastering work that didn't get out for a few days. Protools appears reasonably backwards compatible, i.e., older version files will open in the next upgraded version. It sort of kind of works, most of the time. You can open in the next upgraded version usually, but not two versions later. It's a whole lot better than the whole godawful FCP fiasco, but it's still not something I would want to rely on. Export to a standard format. If someone were serious about keeping their files up to date, it can be done. If someone would export to a standard format that doesn't change, it would be fine. But people don't. And then people wander in with old media asking to read them. Yeah, but you have to do it. You can't just do the logical thing of putting the drive in storage and hook it up if you need it again. You can do that with paper. Tape has a history of 50 years or more where you can do that, phonograph records go back 100 years. And I'll bet that in 20 years, it'll be easier to find an analog tape deck than a computer with an IDE interface and BIOS that will recognize a 30 year old drive. I doubt that. Especially since we are talking about the Studer tape machine, and not just any tape deck. Old computers are still around, and will stay around. I know, because I have some of them. The Studer has a standard format. It's a published standard, you can download the track layout and equalization specs from the AES website. Because it is standard, you can take that 2" 24-track tape and walk into damn near any high end studio in the country and play it back. The format is standardized, it does not change. The same is the case for broadcast wav exports. But it is NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT the case for Pro Tools workfiles. Yes, you have to work a bit at archiving anything, but in the digital world, that means upgrading to newer and better storage media. So if you do it properly, you'll never have a 30 year old drive...you'll have transfered a PERFECT COPY of everything, and tossed it in the trash a long time ago. Yes, but people need to actually do this. Not only that, but they need to continue to keep something that can read those files if they are using proprietary and poorly-documented formats. It has been my experience in dealing with old media that people do not do these things very well. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Richard Webb wrote:
down the road is still in the future. AS I commented earlier in this thread, I still had some reels of 1/4 inch four track I'd have liked toe revisit someday for possible gems, if nothing else to rediscover a creation I'd forgotten. I have an ATR-104 with a 1/4" headstack (actually a Nortronics head in a homebrew mounting) and can play those things. dbx decoder somewhere in the closet. Bring the truck and I'll give you a feed or I can dub to dtrs.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... The tape is obviously not as good as digital, but you really have to make a special effort to entirely lose your work from analogue tape. If only it were so. I know far too many older musicians who now decide to put out a compilation CD, and find some of their old material lost by the record companies. An old cassette dub is hardly a good substitute when trying to release a commercial CD, and yet it is done :-( With digital recording a relatively trivial data error can spell ruin. And multiple *identical* backups kept by so many people involved now, means it is FAR more unlikely to be lost forever. Trevor. |
|
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... You're correct of course. I'm not arguing "for" analog storage, I'm only saying that if that's what you have, it will probably last as long as you need it. There's no compelling reason to copy it to digital media other than to have another copy (which is never a bad idea). But you'll probably need to refresh that digital copy more often than you'll have to refresh the analog original. Which is just as well since it's impossible to copy analog without successive loss, as it is with digital! Trevor. |
|
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... Baking isn't the only solution and what it fixes isn't the only problem that can occur with tape. EXACTLY! Why should I (in the recording business) store tapes or drives at all, for projects that have been completed? That's for the client to do. If the client wants me to store his project, I'm inclined to charge for it. Right, but how many record companies *insisted* on keeping the original recordings, and then failed to look after them properly? Too many IME. Rubish, tape backups HAD to be done in real time, digital files take a few seconds per program hour! Certainly not a few seconds per program hour. Maybe if it's a stereo MP3 file. If it's all the garbage you've saved for a 147 track project, maybe half an hour once you get things set up. Who keeps 147 tracks of analog? It's simply a straw man. You CAN keep 147 tracks of digital if you wish however, but it would take FAR more than half an hour to copy to analog of course! :-) As I said, any fool can write a program to convert digital data without loss. Not me. Fortunately there are plenty who can. It's NOT hard for those with any programming ability. Sure they are old enough, I have hard drives over 30YO, but I sure as hell don't use them for file storage any longer! Why not? Because you no longer have anything to connect them to, I'll bet. You'd LOSE that bet :-) I can still access an ST406/512 drive when necessary, (and ESDI and SCSI) and 5.25" floppies etc :-) What are you going to do if you actually need them? Why would I? All data has been copied to bigger,cheaper new drives, *without loss*. At one time I did (though it was an Ampex, not a Studer), all of that except the climate controlled storage and I paid for repairs with my time and the cost of parts. You probably do the same when your computers need repair. Right, thankfully it's not in the same league as replacing 2" heads on a Studer!!! Maybe you were born too late to ever know the time when people actually paid to have other people record them. I wish! :-) Studios were the place where there were people who knew how to operate and maintain the equipment, they invested in the equipment, and they charged for their services. Today, you can still find paid recording studios, and that's the place where you find the analog recorders available for those who want to use them in their projects. Yep, tucked in a corner, only by a few, for the even fewer artists who still want to record that way. Most of the studio's here (and I'm not talking bedroom studio's) record maybe 99% to digital, even IF they still have a tape machine. I wonder how many people will be able to play 1" or 2"" tapes in 2041 even IF they survive anyway? Does it matter? As long as there are enough that's all there needs to be. How many people will be able to open a Pro Tools version 4 project in 2041? Or even in 2011? As with YOUR statement, ENOUGH. And far easier for anyone to do so if they find it necessary to justify some small effort. People talk about the loss of making multiple generations of analog but every multitrack analog recording is at least third generation by the time it gets pressed. Right, I always considered that a BAD thing, and a problem which digital solved. And so what if there's a little loss? Who cares? REALLY! Not everyone was happy with cassette or MP3 either, I know many are, but some of us do prefer HiFi! I've thought it through, and I finish a project and then it's done. What happens to it in 30 years is someone else's problem. If I recorded it digitally, I'll be happy to hand over the drives to the client (as long as he's paid for the media). I can give him documentation as to what he has and advise him about storage and archiving, but it's not my problem. It's not my job. I don't do this. Right, and the VAST majority of your clients will be happier for you to hand over digital recordings these days that they can use, than 2" tapes bet! I even know some artists who when confronted with 2" tapes the record companies no longer wished to store, threw them out because they had no use for them, no way to play them, and no space to store them. They still have CD's and digital copies of the final product of course, but the original tracking is now lost. So just to be sure, you'd better save everything. But sometimes you want to re-create the original mix and just to it with better equipment. Which is certainly possible IF there is reason to justify whatever expense is necessary. Analog OR digital. With digital however it is no longer necessary to go back to the original tracking tapes in a quest to get better quality instead of from the 3rd or 4th generation mix tape, as is done with many CD transfers from analog. IF what you want is the same as the original mix, THAT is what you now use. Your whole argument does NOT provide ANY benefit from having analog tape as the original source in any case. I was never arguing that it was better. I was only commenting that if I have an analog tape, I don't feel compelled to go out of my way to make a digital copy of it until I need it. Wel that is NOT how it appeared to read! If what you said was IN YOUR OPINION what YOU already own WORKED FOR YOU, then I sure as hell would NOT bother to argue with that! OTOH the persistant argument presented that analog tape is somehow a better archive source, is definitely debateable. Trevor. |
|
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... But we're not talking about Photoshop. I don't have anything that will make sense of a Wordstar file. I used that a lot until about 1990. I have a lot of Wordstar files on floppy disks, fortunately none that I've had to open. Right, or you'd find all the ascii data is still there (providing you can read the disk) And since Wordstar had such limited formatting anything you've lost will be fairly trivial. Anyone really serious about saving mix, pan, and eq information is going to re-open their version of Protools in the next, latest version, and re-save under the new version. OR they simply save rendered wave files instead, or as well. Sure, there are times when you'll replace the drums and add a rap part and such, but other times you want to start out with the mix that the band and producer heard when they made the record and just clean up some things. Right, with analog the desire is always there to "clean" things up. I don't know about your 5 year estimate. I've had many drives in service for more than 5 years. Yep, they can last from 1 day to 30+ years IME. Yeah, but you have to do it. Yep, archiving takes time and effort no matter what you use! You can't just do the logical thing of putting the drive in storage and hook it up if you need it again. You can do that with paper. Nope, many paper scrolls are now dust. Even chiseled rocks do not last forever! Tape has a history of 50 years or more where you can do that, And many that didn't. Still 50 years is a miniscule time frame to many archivists. phonograph records go back 100 years. And I'll bet that in 20 years, it'll be easier to find an analog tape deck than a computer with an IDE interface and BIOS that will recognize a 30 year old drive. I'll bet in 30 years we can still play a standard CD as easily as we can play a standard vinyl record today. The difference is that the CD will probably be recovereable bit for bit identical when compared to the original master, NOT so the vinyl disk or analog tape! Trevor. |
|
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Paul" wrote in message ... I have drives that are more than 5 years in service too, but if you don't want to ever deal with a hard drive going bad on you, you ought to replace them after 5-7 years or so. NOT if you have a proper back-up regime. I was still using a 20YO drive daily until last year, the one I'm currently using at the moment is over 10 years old. Neither has given any trouble. Others have lasted less than a month, so thinking that you have 5-7 years is asking for trouble! I still have records, but I don't play them anymore. I only play them to copy to digital these days if they are not already available on CD. (or if the CD is really bad, since all my vinyl is mint) Likewise my R2R machines don't get much use either these days except for the occasional digital copy. I still use my cassette player occasionally, but only on the tapes that still play well, which is becoming fewer and fewer... I haven't used my cassette machine in so long I'd have to spend too much time servicing it to even bother. I turned away a couple of requests to transfer cassettes rather than worry about it. Trevor. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| RAM and multitrack recording | Pro Audio | |||
| Multitrack Recording for Mac? | Pro Audio | |||
| Any experience with Rain Recording laptops? | Pro Audio | |||
| Hd and multitrack recording | Pro Audio | |||
| PC Recording vs Standalone multitrack recording | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
