Hollywood's Digital "Film" Storage Troubles.

[hank alrich]

This is eye opening. We talk often of how great digital is, how we can
keep files happening by transferring to new storage media, but we don't
often talk of the economic consequences of that practice. This is the
first I've read of the comparative costs of long-term storage of digital
media files. It suggest to me that I do keep the Studer B67 in action
and that when my own tracks are mixed, a copy of that mix is stored on
analog tape.

http://tinyurl.com/29zvgh

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> This is eye opening. We talk often of how great digital is, how we can
> keep files happening by transferring to new storage media, but we don't
> often talk of the economic consequences of that practice. This is the
> first I've read of the comparative costs of long-term storage of digital
> media files. It suggest to me that I do keep the Studer B67 in action
> and that when my own tracks are mixed, a copy of that mix is stored on
> analog tape.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/29zvgh
>

No offense, Hank... but are you really worried about it? I mean the HUGE
cost of keeping "hundreds of megabytes" backed up? :-) Relax, we don't
have the same problems that the movie studios have. Their backup
requirements are a lot taller than ours, by far. They have massive
amounts of stuff to backup. They keep every take. They have several
times the data storage requirements on top of that. They make hundreds
of millions of dollars on some of these pictures, they can afford it.
Whiny *******s...

[Scott Dorsey]

Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>No offense, Hank... but are you really worried about it? I mean the HUGE
>cost of keeping "hundreds of megabytes" backed up? :-) Relax, we don't
>have the same problems that the movie studios have. Their backup
>requirements are a lot taller than ours, by far. They have massive
>amounts of stuff to backup. They keep every take. They have several
>times the data storage requirements on top of that. They make hundreds
>of millions of dollars on some of these pictures, they can afford it.
>Whiny *******s...

I am worried about it, and even more I am worried about the cost of keeping
track of indexing information.

That's why I'm still using DTRS in the modern age. I work festivals where
I may come back with 60 DTRS tapes... and then a decade later get a call
for someone who wants a mixdown of one set or even one song on one tape.

I'm not saying there won't be a good online solution for this kind of
problem, but I don't see one today.
--scott

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

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>> No offense, Hank... but are you really worried about it? I mean the HUGE
>> cost of keeping "hundreds of megabytes" backed up? :-) Relax, we don't
>> have the same problems that the movie studios have. Their backup
>> requirements are a lot taller than ours, by far. They have massive
>> amounts of stuff to backup. They keep every take. They have several
>> times the data storage requirements on top of that. They make hundreds
>> of millions of dollars on some of these pictures, they can afford it.
>> Whiny *******s...
>
> I am worried about it, and even more I am worried about the cost of keeping
> track of indexing information.
>
> That's why I'm still using DTRS in the modern age. I work festivals where
> I may come back with 60 DTRS tapes... and then a decade later get a call
> for someone who wants a mixdown of one set or even one song on one tape.
>
> I'm not saying there won't be a good online solution for this kind of
> problem, but I don't see one today.
> --scott
>

I will agree with you there, but I wouldn't consider DTRS to be a stable
recording medium, much less a stable storage medium.

[hank alrich]

Romeo Rondeau > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > This is eye opening. We talk often of how great digital is, how we can
> > keep files happening by transferring to new storage media, but we don't
> > often talk of the economic consequences of that practice. This is the
> > first I've read of the comparative costs of long-term storage of digital
> > media files. It suggest to me that I do keep the Studer B67 in action
> > and that when my own tracks are mixed, a copy of that mix is stored on
> > analog tape.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/29zvgh
> >
>
> No offense, Hank... but are you really worried about it? I mean the HUGE
> cost of keeping "hundreds of megabytes" backed up? :-) Relax, we don't
> have the same problems that the movie studios have. Their backup
> requirements are a lot taller than ours, by far. They have massive
> amounts of stuff to backup. They keep every take. They have several
> times the data storage requirements on top of that. They make hundreds
> of millions of dollars on some of these pictures, they can afford it.
> Whiny *******s...

That's not the point. The point is that digital storage is not archiving
in the traditional meaning of the term, and that if you want to keep the
files workable you will invest considerable time into maintaining their
storage media. This is nontrivial, regardless of whether it's your/my
audio tracks or hollyweird's "films", unless you have available
unlimited amounts of what could have been free time.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 23, 12:53 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

> The point is that digital storage is not archiving
> in the traditional meaning of the term, and that if you want to keep the
> files workable you will invest considerable time into maintaining their
> storage media. This is nontrivial, regardless of whether it's your/my
> audio tracks or hollyweird's "films", unless you have available
> unlimited amounts of what could have been free time.

A lot can change in 7 years, but when I was around Mackie, Kieth Olsen
was also working there. He has the background as an LA music producer
and told me that (at the time) the major labels were requiring outside
producers to deliver masters on analog tape as a condition for their
final payment. They didn't care how the project was originally
recorded, but wanted multitrack analog masters for their vaults.

I suspect that this requirement is no longer in effect due to the
extra expense (that the label would have to bear) of creating analog
copies in a world where 2" 24-track analog recorders are becoming
extinct. I'll bet they're taking intact ProTools project disks now,
but will there be ProTools in 25 years?

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On Dec 23, 12:53 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> > The point is that digital storage is not archiving
> > in the traditional meaning of the term, and that if you want to keep the
> > files workable you will invest considerable time into maintaining their
> > storage media. This is nontrivial, regardless of whether it's your/my
> > audio tracks or hollyweird's "films", unless you have available
> > unlimited amounts of what could have been free time.
>
> A lot can change in 7 years, but when I was around Mackie, Kieth Olsen
> was also working there. He has the background as an LA music producer
> and told me that (at the time) the major labels were requiring outside
> producers to deliver masters on analog tape as a condition for their
> final payment. They didn't care how the project was originally
> recorded, but wanted multitrack analog masters for their vaults.

Looking at those costs for movies, I'd think it cheaper for them to bite
the analog archive bullet early, rather than keep forking over what
could have been small fortunes to maintain digital files.

> I suspect that this requirement is no longer in effect due to the
> extra expense (that the label would have to bear) of creating analog
> copies in a world where 2" 24-track analog recorders are becoming
> extinct. I'll bet they're taking intact ProTools project disks now,
> but will there be ProTools in 25 years?

Good question, and the likely answer is probably not, but if so, quite
likely to be unable to read files a quarter-century old.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> That's why I'm still using DTRS in the modern age. I work festivals where
>> I may come back with 60 DTRS tapes... and then a decade later get a call
>> for someone who wants a mixdown of one set or even one song on one tape.
>>
>> I'm not saying there won't be a good online solution for this kind of
>> problem, but I don't see one today.
>
>I will agree with you there, but I wouldn't consider DTRS to be a stable
>recording medium, much less a stable storage medium.

It's not! That's why I am so worried! Actually, though, reliability of
DTRS for the application is surprisingly good, since I'm not having to
go back and forth over the tape much. It's not perfect, and it's not
as reliable as the 1" by any means, but it's better than you'd expect for
something as nasty and cantankerous as a helical scan system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sean Conolly]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> This is eye opening. We talk often of how great digital is, how we can
> keep files happening by transferring to new storage media, but we don't
> often talk of the economic consequences of that practice. This is the
> first I've read of the comparative costs of long-term storage of digital
> media files. It suggest to me that I do keep the Studer B67 in action
> and that when my own tracks are mixed, a copy of that mix is stored on
> analog tape.

I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical media. I remember
my brother 20 years ago quoting articles about how CDs would just decay and
become unusable after 10 years, but all the ones I have from 1984 are still
playing fine today. The discussion about formats becoming forgotten is also
misleading - you can bet that 100 years from now they still know exactly how
to decode a CD, and I bet a DVD as well.

Technology abhors a vacuum - something will come up, and someone will make
some money on it too.

Sean

[rboy]

On Dec 23, 2:00*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>I'll bet they're taking intact ProTools project disks now,
> but will there be ProTools in 25 years?


As long as there are computers that can read that there's a file
there, even if Digi goes belly up, someone will make a utility, even
if it's in the Nuxnux operating system of the future, that will
translate the files. AIFF and WAV are a sure bet, because the whole
world uses them (or "used" them, in this case), not just the audio
world. PT files will just require the need and it will be filled.

I think now that we're in the digital universe it's much easier to
transfer beyond it to the next phase than it was to translate into
it. Just move the numbers.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Sean Conolly wrote:

> I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical media.

I think you are underestimating the amount of data, also btw. that they are
stored spinning on harddisk arrays.

> Technology abhors a vacuum - something will come up, and someone will
> make some money on it too.

Fair bet, but not a sure bet. Are there anybody out there that still makes
compact casette decks?

> Sean


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:07:30 -0800 (PST), rboy >
wrote:

> the Nuxnux operating system of the future

"Moe, Larry, Cheese. Moe, Larry, Cheese."

But seriously, the software translations will probably
always be there (for our lifetime's definition of "always"),
although hardware likely maybe possibly who knows won't.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[rboy]

On Dec 23, 9:37*pm, "Sean Conolly" > wrote:

> I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical media. I remember
> my brother 20 years ago quoting articles about how CDs would just decay and
> become unusable after 10 years, but all the ones I have from 1984 are still
> playing fine today.


Well, the guy who invented the error correction for audio CDs deserves
much of that credit. That's different from pulling files off of
them.


>The discussion about formats becoming forgotten is also
> misleading - you can bet that 100 years from now they still know exactly how
> to decode a CD, and I bet a DVD as well.


We have a better idea of how to prepare for the future than we used
to. I think so much information in places with much more at stake
that recording studios have been keeping one eye on this issue for a
while and will be decently prepared to lead us into the next phase.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 23, 10:07 pm, rboy > wrote:

> As long as there are computers that can read that there's a file
> there, even if Digi goes belly up, someone will make a utility, even
> if it's in the Nuxnux operating system of the future, that will
> translate the files.

Chances are that there will be collectors who have working computers
that can connect to today's hard drives and read files, but it will be
like wire recorders are today. And let me correct the next part of
your statement. It's not "someone will make a utility" it's someone
COULD make a utility . . . " There will probably be MP3 players for a
long time because there are so many MP3 files. Same with CDs. But
ProTools project files? Just a relative handful.

> AIFF and WAV are a sure bet, because the whole
> world uses them (or "used" them, in this case), not just the audio
> world. PT files will just require the need and it will be filled.

I think you're very much the optimist. No doubt it can be done, but
someone has to want badly enough to do it. Analog tape is in the same
boat. If necessary, someone can build an analog tape deck. Not any ol'
someone, of course, but it can be done as long as we haven't lost our
ability to use tools. But it won't be easy.

> I think now that we're in the digital universe it's much easier to
> transfer beyond it to the next phase than it was to translate into
> it. Just move the numbers.

Yeah, there are a lot of peope who think that. I don't expect to be
around to prove them wrong. It'll be someone else's problem.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:17:06 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

> It'll be someone else's problem.

This has its own acronym, an "SEP". Given current American
politics and global forcing factors, I'll just betcha that
the acronym makes it into the Oxford this year.

Placing bets, gentlemen...



But anyway, much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:03:24 -0800 (PST), rboy >
wrote:

>On Dec 23, 9:37*pm, "Sean Conolly" > wrote:
>
>> I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical media. I remember
>> my brother 20 years ago quoting articles about how CDs would just decay and
>> become unusable after 10 years, but all the ones I have from 1984 are still
>> playing fine today.
>
>
>Well, the guy who invented the error correction for audio CDs deserves
>much of that credit. That's different from pulling files off of
>them.

Pressed, aluminized CD's are a whole different animal than homemade
photosensitive layer dye CD's. There's really only the data structure
in common. It even takes a different laser to read them; it's that
different.


>>The discussion about formats becoming forgotten is also
>> misleading - you can bet that 100 years from now they still know exactly how
>> to decode a CD, and I bet a DVD as well.
>
>
>We have a better idea of how to prepare for the future than we used
>to. I think so much information in places with much more at stake
>that recording studios have been keeping one eye on this issue for a
>while and will be decently prepared to lead us into the next phase.

One can only hope, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Technology
is fragile and effervescent; here today and gone tomorrow. Who
wants to start the list of daisy pushers of their lifetime?

It'd be a long list, is all I'm saying.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:57:51 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
> wrote:

>Digital storage does not degrade as predictably as film. Therefore, the
>studios employ archivists who copy and check the copies at specified
>intervals. But hard disks do have ecc encoding, so if a bit drops here or
>there, it will be regenerated during copy.

And yet, I suspect that our ideas of the difference between
storage and archiving are *a lot* different from theirs.

And, how important is it to have the late 1930's Jean Renoir
films, despite the attempt of the Nazi's to destroy them?

Or Zhang YiMou's early 1990's films in the light of current
PRC policies? Archiving... Aye, there's the rub.


Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical media. I remember
>my brother 20 years ago quoting articles about how CDs would just decay and
>become unusable after 10 years, but all the ones I have from 1984 are still
>playing fine today. The discussion about formats becoming forgotten is also
>misleading - you can bet that 100 years from now they still know exactly how
>to decode a CD, and I bet a DVD as well.

Pressed CDs are pretty stable. CD-Rs are not. The technology involved is
totally different.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"rboy" > wrote in message


> On Dec 23, 2:00 pm, Mike Rivers

> wrote: >I'll bet they're taking intact ProTools project
> disks now, but will there be ProTools in 25 years?

Good question.

But first, will you be able to load that disk somewhere and make it work?

> As long as there are computers that can read that there's
> a file there, even if Digi goes belly up, someone will
> make a utility, even if it's in the Nuxnux operating
> system of the future, that will translate the files.
> AIFF and WAV are a sure bet, because the whole world uses
> them (or "used" them, in this case), not just the audio
> world.

For example, if you backed files up onto a hard drive a few years back, that
drive would probably be a parallel ATA (PATA) drive. If you haven't looked
at a commodity motherboard lately, you didn't notice that they come with
only one PATA port, down from two, and obviously headed for zero.

If you haven't looked at a popular-priced dell desktop lately, you didn't
notice the complete absence of those little round min-DIN keyboard and mouse
ports. It is kind of moot, but try to find a new piece of equipment with a
USB 1.1 port on it. OK, USB 2.0 is upwards compatible, but in the real world
that isn't always so. All USB 2.0 ports aren't even compatible with all USB
2.0 equipment!

Software can be written retroactively, but hardware tends far more to be
what it is, and little more.



> PT files will just require the need and it will
> be filled.
>
> I think now that we're in the digital universe it's much
> easier to transfer beyond it to the next phase than it
> was to translate into it. Just move the numbers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message

> Sean Conolly wrote:
>
>> I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical
>> media.
>
> I think you are underestimating the amount of data, also
> btw. that they are stored spinning on harddisk arrays.
>
>> Technology abhors a vacuum - something will come up, and
>> someone will make some money on it too.

> Fair bet, but not a sure bet. Are there anybody out there
> that still makes compact casette decks?

Yes, at least for bottom-buck boom boxes.

Look at it this way - they still make turntables!

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mike Rivers > posted:
>
> bet they're taking intact ProTools project disks now,
> but will there be ProTools in 25 years?
>
Would it matter, considering that the storage media will probably be
unreadable in that time due to the combination of deterioration and format
changes?

Neil

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "rboy" > wrote in message
>
>
>> On Dec 23, 2:00 pm, Mike Rivers
>
>> wrote: >I'll bet they're taking intact ProTools project
>> disks now, but will there be ProTools in 25 years?
>
> Good question.
>
> But first, will you be able to load that disk somewhere and make it work?
>
>> As long as there are computers that can read that there's
>> a file there, even if Digi goes belly up, someone will
>> make a utility, even if it's in the Nuxnux operating
>> system of the future, that will translate the files.
>> AIFF and WAV are a sure bet, because the whole world uses
>> them (or "used" them, in this case), not just the audio
>> world.
>
> For example, if you backed files up onto a hard drive a few years back, that
> drive would probably be a parallel ATA (PATA) drive. If you haven't looked
> at a commodity motherboard lately, you didn't notice that they come with
> only one PATA port, down from two, and obviously headed for zero.
>
> If you haven't looked at a popular-priced dell desktop lately, you didn't
> notice the complete absence of those little round min-DIN keyboard and mouse
> ports. It is kind of moot, but try to find a new piece of equipment with a
> USB 1.1 port on it. OK, USB 2.0 is upwards compatible, but in the real world
> that isn't always so. All USB 2.0 ports aren't even compatible with all USB
> 2.0 equipment!
>
> Software can be written retroactively, but hardware tends far more to be
> what it is, and little more.
>
>
>
>> PT files will just require the need and it will
>> be filled.
>>
>> I think now that we're in the digital universe it's much
>> easier to transfer beyond it to the next phase than it
>> was to translate into it. Just move the numbers.
>
>

You guys are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. If you
can keep an analog machine around to read tape, you can keep a computer
around to read the harddisk. The media doesn't matter, nor the storage
method, nor does the reading machine. You will have to plan a little bit
here, guys. Yes, if you just throw them on a shelf and don't touch them
for 10 years you will most likely have problems. I've done more than a
few restorations and there are some situations where all that was
available was an old record, so the problem isn't new.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>> This is eye opening. We talk often of how great digital is, how we can
>>> keep files happening by transferring to new storage media, but we don't
>>> often talk of the economic consequences of that practice. This is the
>>> first I've read of the comparative costs of long-term storage of digital
>>> media files. It suggest to me that I do keep the Studer B67 in action
>>> and that when my own tracks are mixed, a copy of that mix is stored on
>>> analog tape.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/29zvgh
>>>
>> No offense, Hank... but are you really worried about it? I mean the HUGE
>> cost of keeping "hundreds of megabytes" backed up? :-) Relax, we don't
>> have the same problems that the movie studios have. Their backup
>> requirements are a lot taller than ours, by far. They have massive
>> amounts of stuff to backup. They keep every take. They have several
>> times the data storage requirements on top of that. They make hundreds
>> of millions of dollars on some of these pictures, they can afford it.
>> Whiny *******s...
>
> That's not the point. The point is that digital storage is not archiving
> in the traditional meaning of the term, and that if you want to keep the
> files workable you will invest considerable time into maintaining their
> storage media. This is nontrivial, regardless of whether it's your/my
> audio tracks or hollyweird's "films", unless you have available
> unlimited amounts of what could have been free time.
>

The point of the article was that it costs a lot of money. You are
making a different point here and that's OK... but not the point of the
article. Yes, the move to digital has changed things a bit. Is
maintaining digital storage more time consuming than analog? Maybe,
maybe not. Ever had to bake tape? So we trade convenience, workability
and cost for increased storage requirements. No, it's not trivial... but
like other things in this business you have to plan for the future.

[Arny Krueger]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "rboy" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2:00 pm, Mike Rivers
>>
>>> wrote: >I'll bet they're taking intact ProTools project
>>> disks now, but will there be ProTools in 25 years?
>>
>> Good question.
>>
>> But first, will you be able to load that disk somewhere
>> and make it work?
>>> As long as there are computers that can read that
>>> there's a file there, even if Digi goes belly up,
>>> someone will make a utility, even if it's in the Nuxnux
>>> operating system of the future, that will translate the
>>> files. AIFF and WAV are a sure bet, because the whole
>>> world uses them (or "used" them, in this case), not
>>> just the audio world.
>>
>> For example, if you backed files up onto a hard drive a
>> few years back, that drive would probably be a parallel
>> ATA (PATA) drive. If you haven't looked at a commodity
>> motherboard lately, you didn't notice that they come
>> with only one PATA port, down from two, and obviously
>> headed for zero. If you haven't looked at a popular-priced dell desktop
>> lately, you didn't notice the complete absence of those
>> little round min-DIN keyboard and mouse ports. It is
>> kind of moot, but try to find a new piece of equipment
>> with a USB 1.1 port on it. OK, USB 2.0 is upwards
>> compatible, but in the real world that isn't always so.
>> All USB 2.0 ports aren't even compatible with all USB 2.0 equipment!
>>
>> Software can be written retroactively, but hardware
>> tends far more to be what it is, and little more.
>>
>>
>>
>>> PT files will just require the need and it will
>>> be filled.
>>>
>>> I think now that we're in the digital universe it's much
>>> easier to transfer beyond it to the next phase than it
>>> was to translate into it. Just move the numbers.
>>
>>
>
> You guys are making it way more complicated than it needs
> to be. If you can keep an analog machine around to read
> tape, you can keep a computer around to read the
> harddisk.

Both computers and hard disks tend to go sour on the shelf. Remember, we're
talking archival time frames.

> The media doesn't matter, nor the storage
> method, nor does the reading machine. You will have to
> plan a little bit here, guys. Yes, if you just throw them
> on a shelf and don't touch them for 10 years you will
> most likely have problems.

Yes, if you throw them both on the shelf for 10 years and don't touch them,
you will have problems way too often for good sleep to be warranted.

If you fire them up periodically, you will only benefit by knowing the date
of component death with greater precision.

> I've done more than a few
> restorations and there are some situations where all that
> was available was an old record, so the problem isn't new.

The problem with analog as your only backup is that analog record/play media
for audio has been very substandard for a very long time. If the same hasn't
already happened for movies, that day will be upon us pretty soon.

[hank alrich]

Sean Conolly > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is eye opening. We talk often of how great digital is, how we can
> > keep files happening by transferring to new storage media, but we don't
> > often talk of the economic consequences of that practice. This is the
> > first I've read of the comparative costs of long-term storage of digital
> > media files. It suggest to me that I do keep the Studer B67 in action
> > and that when my own tracks are mixed, a copy of that mix is stored on
> > analog tape.
>
> I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical media. I remember
> my brother 20 years ago quoting articles about how CDs would just decay and
> become unusable after 10 years, but all the ones I have from 1984 are still
> playing fine today. The discussion about formats becoming forgotten is also
> misleading - you can bet that 100 years from now they still know exactly how
> to decode a CD, and I bet a DVD as well.
>
> Technology abhors a vacuum - something will come up, and someone will make
> some money on it too.

I've had a replicated commercial CD go bad in less than a single year.
It sat in a car in the summer in Weiser ID for one day, and thereafter
will not play and will not show up in any of my computers no matter what
software is trying to find it.

People already have data they cannot get at because the machinery that
read the stuff is no longer available. Given enough money to throw at
such a problem the odds improve, but at what cost? I don't think
Hollywood is underestimating anything. If you read that article you'll
see what the comparable costs for digital versus traditional film print
archiving are. It's going to be little different for audio files versus
decent tape, in my own expectation.

From the article:

"As one generation of digital magic replaces the next, archived
"materials must be repeatedly "migrated" to the new format, or risk
"becoming unreadable. Thus, NASA scientists found in 1999 that they were
"unable to read digital data saved from a Viking space probe in 1975;
"the format had long been obsolete."

So this problem is not theoretical, and not all in the future.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>The problem with analog as your only backup is that analog record/play media
>for audio has been very substandard for a very long time. If the same hasn't
>already happened for movies, that day will be upon us pretty soon.

Not any more, thanks to RMGI and ATR Magnetics. There's no red oxide
"safety tape" anymore, though.

As far as films go, hardly ANYONE bothers to pull separations on B&W film
any more. Used to be standard practice, but now they just stick the negatives
and a low-con print in the vault. This is a bad thing.
--scott

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

[Mark]

On Dec 24, 10:55*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Sean Conolly > wrote:
> > "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > This is eye opening. We talk often of how great digital is, how we can
> > > keep files happening by transferring to new storage media, but we don't
> > > often talk of the economic consequences of that practice. This is the
> > > first I've read of the comparative costs of long-term storage of digital
> > > media files. It suggest to me that I do keep the Studer B67 in action
> > > and that when my own tracks are mixed, a copy of that mix is stored on
> > > analog tape.
>
> > I think they're underestimating the endurance of optical media. I remember
> > my brother 20 years ago quoting articles about how CDs would just decay and
> > become unusable after 10 years, but all the ones I have from 1984 are still
> > playing fine today. The discussion about formats becoming forgotten is also
> > misleading - you can bet that 100 years from now they still know exactly how
> > to decode a CD, and I bet a DVD as well.
>
> > Technology abhors a vacuum - something will come up, and someone will make
> > some money on it too.
>
> I've had a replicated commercial CD go bad in less than a single year.
> It sat in a car in the summer in Weiser ID for one day, and thereafter
> will not play and will not show up in any of my computers no matter what
> software is trying to find it.
>
> People already have data they cannot get at because the machinery that
> read the stuff is no longer available. Given enough money to throw at
> such a problem the odds improve, but at what cost? I don't think
> Hollywood is underestimating anything. If you read that article you'll
> see what the comparable costs for digital versus traditional film print
> archiving are. It's going to be little different for audio files versus
> decent tape, in my own expectation.
>
> From the article:
>
> "As one generation of digital magic replaces the next, archived
> "materials must be repeatedly "migrated" to the new format, or risk
> "becoming unreadable. Thus, NASA scientists found in 1999 that they were
> "unable to read digital data saved from a Viking space probe in 1975;
> "the format had long been obsolete."
>
> So this problem is not theoretical, and not all in the future.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Another interesting aspect is to consider is DRM vs preservation.

If there are enough copies of something "out there", __someone__
will still have a working copy in ten, twenty years.

Can we consider "the Web" to be a gigantic distributed storage
system?

Mark

[hank alrich]

rboy > wrote:

> I think now that we're in the digital universe it's much easier to
> transfer beyond it to the next phase than it was to translate into
> it. Just move the numbers.

Sure, that is simple, but Hollywood is discovering that it is also
extraordinarily costly.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Sean Conolly]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> ...
> From the article:
>
> "As one generation of digital magic replaces the next, archived
> "materials must be repeatedly "migrated" to the new format, or risk
> "becoming unreadable. Thus, NASA scientists found in 1999 that they were
> "unable to read digital data saved from a Viking space probe in 1975;
> "the format had long been obsolete."
>
> So this problem is not theoretical, and not all in the future.

That specific part is one of the most misleading sections. NASA had all of
what, two applications for the format? As opposed to how many billions of
CDs or DVDs are floating around? The scope of use is a big part of whether
it becomes obsolete - chose a format that is widely popular and no one is
soon forget how it works.

Sean

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 24, 10:37 am, Romeo Rondeau > wrote:

> You guys are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. If you
> can keep an analog machine around to read tape, you can keep a computer
> around to read the harddisk.

You've hit the nail on the head. How many people keep an analog
machine around to play tape? People (individuals, not record labels)
have tapes with nothing to play them on and analog audio tape decks
have just barely gone out of production (I think Otari is still making
a 5050 model). So how long after IDE disk drives go out of production
(they practically are now) do you think people will have computers
around to read them?

There will be a handful who will, just as there are a handful of
people who have analog tape decks and offer a transfer service. But
they want to be paid for their investment, their time, their
expertise, and their upkeep. How many reels of tape do you have that
you'd pay $500 a piece for to copy to a stereo audio file in a format
of your choice?

> Yes, if you just throw them on a shelf and don't touch them
> for 10 years you will most likely have problems.

But that's what people do. Actually, 10 years is most likely not a
problem, and there are still enough tape decks around to play 60 year
old recordings. But computer hardware becomes obsolete faster than
analog hardware, and unlike professional tape decks that are precision
machines that can be repaired almost indefinitely, and things of
beauty to boot, computers are just lifeless boxes that go to the scrap
heap with no emotional attachment when they won't run the latest OS or
can't accommodate all the memory or disk space that the latest
applications require.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 24, 11:16 am, Mark > wrote:

> Can we consider "the Web" to be a gigantic distributed storage
> system?

Yeah, I can see it now. A studio goes to the web looking for a copy of
a film that they no longer have in their vault. Someone has a bootleg
that they offer, and get sued for copyright infringement.

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>That specific part is one of the most misleading sections. NASA had all of
>what, two applications for the format? As opposed to how many billions of
>CDs or DVDs are floating around? The scope of use is a big part of whether
>it becomes obsolete - chose a format that is widely popular and no one is
>soon forget how it works.

No, it was recorded on an off-the-shelf Ampex FR-1000 instrumentation
recorder. The FAA used to use the same machine for recording radar traces
and they have a stack of unreadable tapes too. It was an exotic format at
the time, but not a one-off by any means and there were hundreds of those
machines made.

It might be possible to read transverse-scan tapes with one of the new
multi-element Hall effect sensors, though. The forensic audio guys are
big on them although I don't know if they make them as big as 2".
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:57:44 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

>You've hit the nail on the head. How many people keep an analog
>machine around to play tape? People (individuals, not record labels)
>have tapes with nothing to play them on and analog audio tape decks
>have just barely gone out of production (I think Otari is still making
>a 5050 model). So how long after IDE disk drives go out of production
>(they practically are now) do you think people will have computers
>around to read them?

Why does it matter if the interface is IDE?

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:57:44 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:
>
>>You've hit the nail on the head. How many people keep an analog
>>machine around to play tape? People (individuals, not record labels)
>>have tapes with nothing to play them on and analog audio tape decks
>>have just barely gone out of production (I think Otari is still making
>>a 5050 model). So how long after IDE disk drives go out of production
>>(they practically are now) do you think people will have computers
>>around to read them?
>
>Why does it matter if the interface is IDE?

Because when IDE drives disappear, IDE interfaces will cease being made.
Not that you can't hack your own up with some TTL in a pinch, but not
many folks will do that and the people who will, they'll charge a lot of
money.
--scott

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

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:37 am, Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>
>> You guys are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. If you
>> can keep an analog machine around to read tape, you can keep a computer
>> around to read the harddisk.
>
> You've hit the nail on the head. How many people keep an analog
> machine around to play tape? People (individuals, not record labels)
> have tapes with nothing to play them on and analog audio tape decks
> have just barely gone out of production (I think Otari is still making
> a 5050 model). So how long after IDE disk drives go out of production
> (they practically are now) do you think people will have computers
> around to read them?
>
> There will be a handful who will, just as there are a handful of
> people who have analog tape decks and offer a transfer service. But
> they want to be paid for their investment, their time, their
> expertise, and their upkeep. How many reels of tape do you have that
> you'd pay $500 a piece for to copy to a stereo audio file in a format
> of your choice?

If it's a high enough priority, they will pay the market price. No, I'm
not going to re-mix anything that I recorded for my grandkids, but on a
real project there's money for that.


> But that's what people do. Actually, 10 years is most likely not a
> problem, and there are still enough tape decks around to play 60 year
> old recordings. But computer hardware becomes obsolete faster than
> analog hardware, and unlike professional tape decks that are precision
> machines that can be repaired almost indefinitely, and things of
> beauty to boot, computers are just lifeless boxes that go to the scrap
> heap with no emotional attachment when they won't run the latest OS or
> can't accommodate all the memory or disk space that the latest
> applications require.

What are you talking about? You'll still be using Windows 2000 on a PIII
machine :-) We'll take the harddrives over to your house :-)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Laurence Payne <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:57:44 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> You've hit the nail on the head. How many people keep an analog
>>> machine around to play tape? People (individuals, not record labels)
>>> have tapes with nothing to play them on and analog audio tape decks
>>> have just barely gone out of production (I think Otari is still making
>>> a 5050 model). So how long after IDE disk drives go out of production
>>> (they practically are now) do you think people will have computers
>>> around to read them?
>> Why does it matter if the interface is IDE?
>
> Because when IDE drives disappear, IDE interfaces will cease being made.
> Not that you can't hack your own up with some TTL in a pinch, but not
> many folks will do that and the people who will, they'll charge a lot of
> money.
> --scott
>

This is why you need to plan, Scott... When IDE drives get scarce
(actually when nothing can read USB 2.0 or firewire, those external
boxes will outlast IDE internals), you copy them to the new format. Then
when that happens you copy that stuff over to the new format. And so
on... pain in the butt? Yes. Or you could pay a company to store them
for you that will be able to deliver copies at will. It's a service and
it has value, just like when you transfer an old format to a new one. If
it's not that important, then don't keep it. Nothing different from
transferring an LP to CD, just different gear.

[Laurence Payne]

On 24 Dec 2007 14:15:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>Why does it matter if the interface is IDE?
>
>Because when IDE drives disappear, IDE interfaces will cease being made.
>Not that you can't hack your own up with some TTL in a pinch, but not
>many folks will do that and the people who will, they'll charge a lot of
>money.

I think we need to agree on a definition of IDE. Over-pedantic to
restrict it to ATA-1, I agree. But is anyone else using it to include
SATA? And if optical drives evolve with yet another interface, so
what?

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 24, 1:39 pm, Laurence Payne

> Why does it matter if the interface is IDE?

Depends on what your question is. I assume you know that an IDE
interface is important because that's what you need in order to
connect to the IDE drive that's been collecting dust on the shelf for
20 years.

I used IDE as an example because that's last year's model. I could
have said MDM, or SCSI, and in a few years it'll be SATA.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 24, 4:16 pm, Laurence Payne

> I think we need to agree on a definition of IDE. Over-pedantic to
> restrict it to ATA-1, I agree. But is anyone else using it to include
> SATA? And if optical drives evolve with yet another interface, so
> what?

If the connector doesn't fit, then it's something different.

[jakdedert]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
<snip>
> 1. Because a successful movie is extremely valuable to the rights holder,
> extreme precautions are taken, and these cost money. So look around; what do
> you have that is worth $10M or more? Probably only a few things: the lives
> of your loved ones. And I'll bet you poke and prod them frequently to make
> sure they're in good shape. But your recordings are protected in a manner
> commensurate with the potential loss. You probably don't keep them in a
> vault; they are as exposed to "acts of God" as the rest of us.

Last Spring, for a major convention, part of the entertainment was to
screen the newest Spiderman Movie...two days before the worldwide
premiere. The 'movie guy' hired to do the presentation, carried around
a small yellow Pelican case wherever he went. It contained the hard
drive with the movie recorded on it.

Sony had that Pelican case, (at least it's contents) insured for $500
MILLION! That's right, half a BILLION bucks! He let me hold it....

jak

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 24, 4:16 pm, Romeo Rondeau > wrote:

> This is why you need to plan, Scott... When IDE drives get scarce
> (actually when nothing can read USB 2.0 or firewire, those external
> boxes will outlast IDE internals), you copy them to the new format.

You always need a plan. When quad video recorders get scarce, you copy
to C-Format or U-Matic. When U-Matic gets scarce, you copy to S-VHS.
When S-VHS gets scarce, you copy to DV or maybe to a pile of DVDs. The
problem is that things get scarce too soon, so the cost of maintaining
the archive keeps rising. It's not enough just to pay for the air
conditioning in the vault, you have to pay for new media, new playback
equipment, and the labor for making fresh copies.

And the issue wasn't about whether it was possible to keep an archive,
it was about the cost of doing so.

> Or you could pay a company to store them
> for you that will be able to deliver copies at will. It's a service and
> it has value, just like when you transfer an old format to a new one.

And that's where the money goes. It doesn't matter who does the work
or owns the equipment, the one with the content to be preserved has to
pay the bill.

> If it's not that important, then don't keep it. Nothing different from
> transferring an LP to CD, just different gear.

That's the part that's hardest to accept. We keep it because we can.
And we restore what we can. Today you have people with master tapes in
their close that their band recorded 30 years ago and they get an urge
to hear them again, or make some CDs. So they go on eBay and buy a
consumer tape deck with the wrong format heads and maybe the wrong
speed, don't align it, and go on rec.audio.pro and ask if it's OK to
play back their 15ips half track tape at 7.5 ips on quarter track
heads and pitch shift it, and, oh, is there a way to get the channels
balanced again, and what's a good noise reduction algorithm? and does
anyone make a Dolby plug-in?

The $500-$2000 per reel shops have all that stuff and know how to use
it, but the guy with the band in 1970 will quickly decide that it's
not worth that to hear his old tapes again. Maybe he still has a copy
of the LP or cassette.

[hank alrich]

Romeo Rondeau > wrote:

> This is why you need to plan, Scott... When IDE drives get scarce
> (actually when nothing can read USB 2.0 or firewire, those external
> boxes will outlast IDE internals), you copy them to the new format. Then
> when that happens you copy that stuff over to the new format. And so
> on... pain in the butt? Yes. Or you could pay a company to store them
> for you that will be able to deliver copies at will. It's a service and
> it has value, just like when you transfer an old format to a new one. If
> it's not that important, then don't keep it. Nothing different from
> transferring an LP to CD, just different gear.

You have just nicely outlined why, if looking at a span of even twenty
years, this is an expensive proposition unless your time is worth
nothing or your library is tiny.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

>
> The $500-$2000 per reel shops have all that stuff and know how to use
> it, but the guy with the band in 1970 will quickly decide that it's
> not worth that to hear his old tapes again. Maybe he still has a copy
> of the LP or cassette.

I fully understand your argument, but what does it matter? I've got
stuff recorded on a Fostex E-16 that is great stuff, but I don't have
one and in order to listen to it, I'll need to pay someone to transfer
it. I can accept that...

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>
>> This is why you need to plan, Scott... When IDE drives get scarce
>> (actually when nothing can read USB 2.0 or firewire, those external
>> boxes will outlast IDE internals), you copy them to the new format. Then
>> when that happens you copy that stuff over to the new format. And so
>> on... pain in the butt? Yes. Or you could pay a company to store them
>> for you that will be able to deliver copies at will. It's a service and
>> it has value, just like when you transfer an old format to a new one. If
>> it's not that important, then don't keep it. Nothing different from
>> transferring an LP to CD, just different gear.
>
> You have just nicely outlined why, if looking at a span of even twenty
> years, this is an expensive proposition unless your time is worth
> nothing or your library is tiny.
>

Life is tough Hank, you'll survive :-)

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:37:55 -0600, Romeo Rondeau >
wrote:

>You guys are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. If you
>can keep an analog machine around to read tape, you can keep a computer
>around to read the harddisk. The media doesn't matter, nor the storage
>method, nor does the reading machine.

I'm not so sure this evening. Just spent many hours trying to
boot a Frankensteined computer with a floppy disc (in order to
FDISK and format C:). Pulling multiple floppy drives from the
stack in (what would be a normal human's) dining room, and
with multiple (old) media, I've concluded that NOTHING WORKS
anymore.

The media can't be formatted; old media can't be read.
It's like floppy discs and drives have all expired. And this
ain't rocket surgery.


(Found a workaround, allowing me to FDISK and format from
the WIN98SE CD. FDISK reports 120GB drives as 59-something
but behaves otherwise and they format fine and then report
correctly).


I would say that I could likely cobble together a linear
path tape reader, but I remember the day when floppy disk
drives cost $500 each (Apple II era), and would consider
a floppy drive reader a larger challenge. Just an aside.

Merry Christmas, and may we all never have to face these issues,
Ho, ho, ho,

Chris Hornbeck

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:


[someone once said]

>>> Technology abhors a vacuum - something will come up, and
>>> someone will make some money on it too.

>> Fair bet, but not a sure bet. Are there anybody out there
>> that still makes compact casette decks?

> Yes, at least for bottom-buck boom boxes.

Those don't count ...

> Look at it this way - they still make turntables!

Some of those do count. I hae a TD124 in need of a not necessarily new arm
btw. ... the transcriptor arm and shell connector came apart incorrectly (x)
when my brother wanted to replace the cartridge and the wiring is torn, I
4sure am too clumsy to even try rewiring it, suggestions, ideas? - the
transcriptor is probably too flimsy for 78 rpm playback anyway.

(x) he loosened the small umbrako pinol that should not have been losened
because it was - as those arm-headshell connectors are - very tight to pull
apart properly and then the end-cap connector at the end of the arm came off
while still attached to the headshell.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

> You guys are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. If
> you can keep an analog machine around to read tape, you can keep a
> computer around to read the harddisk.

You haven't tried having to give up on geriatric computer hardware because
the sockets and connectors never were meant to large longer than 6 years
have you?

> The media doesn't matter, nor
> the storage method, nor does the reading machine. You will have to
> plan a little bit here, guys. Yes, if you just throw them on a shelf
> and don't touch them for 10 years you will most likely have problems.

To store data in those amounts is - with current technology - to keep them
spinning.

> I've done more than a few restorations and there are some situations
> where all that was available was an old record, so the problem isn't
> new.

The difference is that media decay doesn't lead to scrathes, it leads to
total loss of content.

There is an absolutely wonderfully scary sf short story about data storage
......


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 25, 2:33 am, Chris Hornbeck >
wrote:

> Just spent many hours trying to
> boot a Frankensteined computer with a floppy disc (in order to
> FDISK and format C:). Pulling multiple floppy drives from the
> stack in (what would be a normal human's) dining room, and
> with multiple (old) media, I've concluded that NOTHING WORKS
> anymore.

> The media can't be formatted; old media can't be read.
> It's like floppy discs and drives have all expired. And this
> ain't rocket surgery.

I see that a lot among Mackie hard disk recorder users. They have a
floppy drive for saving session files (not audio) and installing the
operating system software on the hard drive. People don't use that
drive for a few years, then something happens and they need to reload
the OS (or decide it's time to update to the last version) and can't
load anything from the floppy drive.

My advice, which usually works, is to buy some brand new floppys
instead of using old ones that have been laying around on a table for
years. But people tell me that they didn't get it to work until they
replaced the floppy drive.

I remember when I used to carry floppys around in my pockets, sit on
them, sweat on them, and they always worked. Maybe all the oxide
evaporates. <g>

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-25 said:
>> Just spent many hours trying to
>> boot a Frankensteined computer with a floppy disc (in order to
>> FDISK and format C:). Pulling multiple floppy drives from the
>> stack in (what would be a normal human's) dining room, and
>> with multiple (old) media, I've concluded that NOTHING WORKS
>> anymore.
>instead of using old ones that have been laying around on a table
>for years. But people tell me that they didn't get it to work until
>they replaced the floppy drive.
>I remember when I used to carry floppys around in my pockets, sit on
>them, sweat on them, and they always worked. Maybe all the oxide
>evaporates. <g>

Dunno 'bout that. AFter Katrina when I got this machine
back from University Hospital New Orleans I went to WAl
Mart, bought a package of (iirc) 25 floppies, 3.5 inch 1.44
mb.
fUlly 20% of these wouldn't format properly right out of the
box.

went to one of the office supply places. Dude told me he
had a package of 50 verbatims. rOughly same result.
Quality control for manufacturing floppies must have gone
out the window as well. LEgacy format, nobody uses it, who
cares!!!




Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Any IC protected by a fast acting fuse will protect the
fuse by blowing first.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 25, 8:59 am, wrote:

> Dunno 'bout that. AFter Katrina when I got this machine
> back from University Hospital New Orleans I went to WAl
> Mart, bought a package of (iirc) 25 floppies, 3.5 inch 1.44
> mb.
> fUlly 20% of these wouldn't format properly right out of the
> box.

Yes, I've heard of that happening, too. Could be that they had been on
the shelf for ten years. I guess they just die of old age whether
they're physically worn out or not.

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
>Some of those do count. I hae a TD124 in need of a not necessarily new arm
>btw. ... the transcriptor arm and shell connector came apart incorrectly (x)
>when my brother wanted to replace the cartridge and the wiring is torn, I
>4sure am too clumsy to even try rewiring it, suggestions, ideas? - the
>transcriptor is probably too flimsy for 78 rpm playback anyway.

Toss the arm and get a used late-model SME. Actually any of the very light
and very straight SMEs will be fine.

Don't worry about being too flimsy for 78 rpm playback... if the arm is
light enough you can track 78s at a couple grams without any problem.

>(x) he loosened the small umbrako pinol that should not have been losened
>because it was - as those arm-headshell connectors are - very tight to pull
>apart properly and then the end-cap connector at the end of the arm came off
>while still attached to the headshell.

Ask your local TV repair shop... odds are they have an SMT rework station
these days with a magnifier and an air gun. Fixing those connectors is
easy with that stuff.

But the SME arm will be better than the original Thorens by a long shot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:

>> (x) he loosened the small umbrako pinol that should not have been
>> losened because it was - as those arm-headshell connectors are -
>> very tight to pull apart properly and then the end-cap connector at
>> the end of the arm came off while still attached to the headshell.

> Ask your local TV repair shop... odds are they have an SMT rework
> station these days with a magnifier and an air gun. Fixing those
> connectors is easy with that stuff.

Good idea, thanks .... those inner tonearm wires are very thin.

> But the SME arm will be better than the original Thorens by a long
> shot.

Ah, that TD124 is a Beogram 3000 (I think that's the proper model number),
it never had the Thorens ... it originally had a Bang & Olufsen arm. Thanks
anyway ....

--scott


Merry Christmas & Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

Some years ago I developed a system that would allow digital information to
be stored "permanently" and easily played back, even 10,000 years from now.
The problem was that the storage was not particularly dense, so I figured no
one would be interested and didn't patent it. Perhaps I should give some
thought to developing and patenting it.

[Mickey530]

> Software can be written retroactively, but hardware tends far more to be
> what it is, and little more.

You're right, of course. But it was still shortsightedness on my part
to toss away my Muntz 4 track tabletop player and my "Disraeli Gears"
cartridge 20 years ago.


If I had only known.

[Richard Kuschel]

On Dec 25, 9:07 pm, Mickey530 > wrote:
> > Software can be written retroactively, but hardware tends far more to be
> > what it is, and little more.
>
> You're right, of course. But it was still shortsightedness on my part
> to toss away my Muntz 4 track tabletop player and my "Disraeli Gears"
> cartridge 20 years ago.
>
> If I had only known.

However, I can transfer that 4 track easily using a Teac recorder.
The original was made on a reel-reel. I also can transfer those old
Beta PCM-F1 recordings to another format as well as those old RCA
Cassettes..

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Some years ago I developed a system that would allow digital
> information to be stored "permanently" and easily played back, even
> 10,000 years from now. The problem was that the storage was not
> particularly dense, so I figured no one would be interested and
> didn't patent it. Perhaps I should give some thought to developing
> and patenting it.

There is the problem of pre-existing art, the pits in granite concept is
well known from the literature, and is known to resist weathering for 5000
years. Write density is also somewhat low.

How about simply cutting z-modem modulation to vinyl?


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Some years ago I developed a system that would allow digital
>> information to be stored "permanently" and easily played back,
>> even 10,000 years from now. The problem was that the storage
>> was not particularly dense, so I figured no one would be interested
>> and didn't patent it. Perhaps I should give some thought to
>> developing and patenting it.

> There is the problem of pre-existing art, the pits in granite concept
> is well known from the literature, and is known to resist weathering
> for 5000 years. Write density is also somewhat low.

> How about simply cutting z-modem modulation to vinyl?

As vinyl loses its plasticizers, it becomes brittle.