Stand Alone Hard Drive Recorders

[Fletch]

Okay, so there was the thread about preferred recording medium, about
which many said they were digital, and some were in the box, now.

Though I'm on DA-88's, and rather happy with them, I have a reluctance
to move "forward" to HDD based recording. However, repairs on 88's is
often rather expensive, too.

That thread made me begin to wonder about the stand alone systems, such
as Radar and others. If I were to jump over to HDD, I would then put my
88's in the role of 'back up' and archive storage.

What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?

Thanks in advance.

--Fletch

[Abemeister]

I am running HDD in a couple of installs to see how they stand up to
the pounding. So far, So good.

I am more afraid of Windows XP. I have a Linux system out there too. No
Macs.
I have a USB device out there too and it seems to be hanging in there.

Recording quality is good and easy to edit.



On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, "Fletch" > wrote:
> Okay, so there was the thread about preferred recording medium, about
> which many said they were digital, and some were in the box, now.
>
> Though I'm on DA-88's, and rather happy with them, I have a reluctance
> to move "forward" to HDD based recording. However, repairs on 88's is
> often rather expensive, too.
>
> That thread made me begin to wonder about the stand alone systems, such
> as Radar and others. If I were to jump over to HDD, I would then put my
> 88's in the role of 'back up' and archive storage.
>
> What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
> reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
> swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
> would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
> that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --Fletch

[Fletch]

On Jan 25, 11:18 am, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "Fletch" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > Okay, so there was the thread about preferred recording medium, about
> > which many said they were digital, and some were in the box, now.
>
> > Though I'm on DA-88's, and rather happy with them, I have a reluctance
> > to move "forward" to HDD based recording. However, repairs on 88's is
> > often rather expensive, too.
>
> > That thread made me begin to wonder about the stand alone systems, such
> > as Radar and others. If I were to jump over to HDD, I would then put my
> > 88's in the role of 'back up' and archive storage.
>
> > What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
> > reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
> > swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
> > would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
> > that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?
>
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> > --FletchAre you interested in low track number, portable units, or high track number
> console type units?
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

Radar style, Mackie or other similar stand alone. Track numbers are
secondary because if the system isn't worth a crap, it won't matter if
it's 8, 16, 24, 32 or more.

Oh, and please, I want in the field operational experiences only, not
conjecture or opinion based on reviews one may have read.

--Fletch

[coreybenson]

On Jan 25, 12:53 pm, "Fletch" > wrote:
> What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
> reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
> swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
> would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
> that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --Fletch

I've been running an Alesis HD24 for over 5 years, without a single
hiccup. The XR version is supposed to have better AD/DA converters in
it. The only regularly reported issues are the lack of a robust remote
control (although the BRC works), lack of SMPTE, and issues with
vibration in extremely loud environments. The FirePort
software/connection allows you to import into WAV or AIFF formats. I've
used it with PC's running Sonar (my preferred DAW), Cubase, Digital
Performer, ProTools and Garage Band. It defaults to 24/48 (24 tracks)
but can run 24/96 (12 tracks) easily. Used, an XR will run you around
1200 (or less) last time I looked. I keep meaning to pick one up... by
my standard HD24 works great.

I'm currently using it as a front-end to an RME Hammerfall 9652, which
allows me to record up to 24 tracks in the box in my studio, but the
HD24 goes out on the road now and again as well.

Good luck!

Corey

[Jim Gilliland]

Fletch wrote:
>
> What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
> reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
> swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
> would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
> that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?

I've been using the Alesis unit for five years now. It's been 100% reliable for
me, no problems whatsoever. The HD24XR is the version that handles 96K. The
sound is excellent - very good converters. Surprisingly inexpensive as well.

Probably the best gear purchase I've ever made.

It has no onboard editing, just standard record/playback. And if you're going
to move your tracks to a workstation to mix, you'll want to buy the Fireport -
it allows you to pull the drive caddy out of the recorder and mount it directly
into your PC or Mac.

It uses standard ATA hard drives that you can buy anywhere.

I can't comment on repair costs - never needed them.

[Richard Crowley]

"Jim Gilliland" wrote ...
>> What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
>> reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
>> swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
>> would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
>> that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?
>
> I've been using the Alesis unit for five years now. It's been 100%
> reliable for me, no problems whatsoever. The HD24XR is the version that
> handles 96K. The sound is excellent - very good converters. Surprisingly
> inexpensive as well.

I can say the same except that I have had mine for only ~3 years.

> Probably the best gear purchase I've ever made.

Likewise.

> It has no onboard editing, just standard record/playback. And if you're
> going to move your tracks to a workstation to mix, you'll want to buy the
> Fireport - it allows you to pull the drive caddy out of the recorder and
> mount it directly into your PC or Mac.

Practically a necessity, IMHO. The one major flaw in the HD24
is that the built-in networking is only 10MB (way too slow for
audio.)

> It uses standard ATA hard drives that you can buy anywhere.

My only problem with it is that it won't mount any of my
hard drives >30 GB. It "gives up" and fails before the
drives are ready (apparently?)

Fortunately, I have a good collection of 20-30GB drives
for my HD24, and various friends give me their castoff
drives as they replace them with larger ones.

> I can't comment on repair costs - never needed them.

Same here.

[Doc Weaver]

On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, "Fletch" > wrote:
> Okay, so there was the thread about preferred recording medium, about
> which many said they were digital, and some were in the box, now.
>
> Though I'm on DA-88's, and rather happy with them, I have a reluctance
> to move "forward" to HDD based recording. However, repairs on 88's is
> often rather expensive, too.
>
> That thread made me begin to wonder about the stand alone systems, such
> as Radar and others. If I were to jump over to HDD, I would then put my
> 88's in the role of 'back up' and archive storage.
>
> What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
> reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
> swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
> would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
> that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --Fletch

I've been using the TASCAM SX1 for years now and love it, even if it
might not be the latest tech. It is an all in one system with: digital
mixer, 16 ch hard disk recording, endless sequencer, VGA, mouse, scsi
ADAT lightpipe coax and analog i/o. The new replacement will be the
X48, if they ever release it. 48channel

IMHO, I like the fact that if there is a problem, I have one company to
blame. I have had issues in the past with the software company blaming
the computer manufacture, who blames the interface company, and on and
on. It also make it nice for remote recording. It sure beats moving a
rack of ADATs, BRC, mixer, and an Anvil full of snakes.

I have a buddy of mine who has a MAC laptop and an anvil rack of
preamps, AD/DAs, wordclock, etc. and he loves his setup. It all
depends on what each person is comfortable with.

Doc Weaver

[Mike Rivers]

Doc Weaver wrote:
> I've been using the TASCAM SX1 for years now and love it, even if it
> might not be the latest tech.

Oh, so YOU'RE the one who bought it. <g> It's good to hear that it's
still doing well for you. It was a good package, but it's quite the
orphan. That's the trouble with these things. RADAR is the one with the
longest lifespan so far.

> IMHO, I like the fact that if there is a problem, I have one company to
> blame.

This is why I like my Mackie HDR24/96. And unlike your SX-1, it uses
some standard hardware components, and there are still a few people at
Mackie who know it well enough to support it as long as parts last.

[AndyP]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> This is why I like my Mackie HDR24/96. And unlike your SX-1, it uses
> some standard hardware components, and there are still a few people at
> Mackie who know it well enough to support it as long as parts last.
>

Hi Mike,

Do you know if there is a HD-based device with no AD converters that just
stores multiple tracks of digital audio, maybe with ADAT inputs? It would be
nice to use something like that instead of a PC. I think it would make a
very flexible system together with external mic preamps and converters.

Thanks,
Andy

[Jim Gilliland]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" wrote ...
>>> What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust,
>>> reliable and durable?
>
>> I've been using the Alesis unit for five years now.
>
> My only problem with it is that it won't mount any of my
> hard drives >30 GB. It "gives up" and fails before the
> drives are ready (apparently?)

Two suggestions. 1) Update your firmware. Alesis has made regular improvements
in this area. 2) Try a different brand of drive. I just installed a 100GB
Seagate ($50 at Microcenter) with no problems whatsoever. Recorded Iris DeMent
with it last Friday.

And I'll repeat my usual "advertisement": Anyone who owns an HD24 should be a
member of the Yahoo HD24 group. We have over 1600 members now in a very active
and growing user community. It's a very useful resource for HD24 owners.

[Federico]

> Do you know if there is a HD-based device with no AD converters that just
> stores multiple tracks of digital audio, maybe with ADAT inputs? It would
> be
> nice to use something like that instead of a PC. I think it would make a
> very flexible system together with external mic preamps and converters.
>

Mackie HDR or MDR with OPT8?
F.

[Jim Gilliland]

AndyP wrote:
>
> Do you know if there is a HD-based device with no AD converters that just
> stores multiple tracks of digital audio, maybe with ADAT inputs? It would be
> nice to use something like that instead of a PC. I think it would make a
> very flexible system together with external mic preamps and converters.

I'd recommend the original HD24 for that purpose. While both HD24 models have
converters, the XR version is so far superior to the standard version that I
really only recommend the regular HD24 to those who are planning to feed it
digitally. It's not that the converters are terrible - they're probably as good
as whatever is in your digital mixer - but the XR's are just THAT much better
and don't cost that much more.

But if you're coming in via ADAT, you don't need them, so the base unit turns
out to be quite economical.

For most users, though, I'd still recommend the XR. Even if you plan to use
digital I/O, you may change your configuration at some point in the future. The
XR uses the same converter chips as the Radar, and it sounds very good.

[Richard Crowley]

"Jim Gilliland" wrote...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "Jim Gilliland" wrote ...
>>>> What would be the group mind on which system
>>>> is the most robust, reliable and durable?
>>
>>> I've been using the Alesis unit for five years now.
>>
>> My only problem with it is that it won't mount any of my
>> hard drives >30 GB. It "gives up" and fails before the
>> drives are ready (apparently?)
>
> Two suggestions. 1) Update your firmware. Alesis has
> made regular improvements in this area.

I'm using 1.15 Because none of the subsequent releases
mention anything about fixing this problem. And I don't
believe in "fixing" things that aren't "broke". I have never
heard anyone recommend upgrading the firmware except
as a "it can't hurt" recommendation. I am very reluctant
to mess with it as it is otherwise working just fine.

> 2) Try a different brand of drive. I just installed a 100GB
> Seagate ($50 at Microcenter) with no problems whatsoever.

Yeah, I've tried four different brands and it behaves the
same with all of them.

> And I'll repeat my usual "advertisement": Anyone who
> owns an HD24 should be a member of the Yahoo HD24
> group. We have over 1600 members now in a very active
> and growing user community. It's a very useful resource
> for HD24 owners.

Alas, nobody there has recommended any solution that
worked. But I'm happy with 30GB. That is enough for
2-3 live concerts at 6-8 tracks each. I don't really want
any more eggs in that basket.

Despite the HD issue (which, as you demonstrate, most
other people aren't seeing) I'd still far more trust the
reliability of the HD24 for live-event recording (especially
unattended) than any compuer-based solution.

[Doc Weaver]

On Jan 25, 9:25 pm, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
> Doc Weaver wrote:
> > I've been using the TASCAM SX1 for years now and love it, even if it
> > might not be the latest tech.Oh, so YOU'RE the one who bought it. <g> It's good to hear that it's
> still doing well for you. It was a good package, but it's quite the
> orphan. That's the trouble with these things. RADAR is the one with the
> longest lifespan so far.
>
> > IMHO, I like the fact that if there is a problem, I have one company to
> > blame.This is why I like my Mackie HDR24/96. And unlike your SX-1, it uses
> some standard hardware components, and there are still a few people at
> Mackie who know it well enough to support it as long as parts last.

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't suggesting the SX1 over other newer units,
and your absolutely right, TASCAM left us dust for their dreams of the
X48 (which has YET to be released). In fact, that's why I list it's
components. Most people never heard of it. To TASCAMs benefit, they
did recently release a new SX1 OS that added some new features.

I still prefer the all in one unit to the multiple component system.
Anything that got me out of ADATs :-)

Doc Weaver

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> I'm using 1.15 Because none of the subsequent releases
> mention anything about fixing this problem. And I don't
> believe in "fixing" things that aren't "broke". I have never
> heard anyone recommend upgrading the firmware except
> as a "it can't hurt" recommendation. I am very reluctant
> to mess with it as it is otherwise working just fine.

Smart feller. I've kept up with the updates for my Mackie because while
nothing was ever "broken" (at least not according to Mackie) there have
been improvements all along. But I'm still using Office 2000 because
nothing's broken that I can see, but there probably is.

> Alas, nobody there has recommended any solution that
> worked. But I'm happy with 30GB. That is enough for
> 2-3 live concerts at 6-8 tracks each. I don't really want
> any more eggs in that basket.

I agree with that philosophy. I upgraded the BIOS in my Mackie so I
could use drives up to 120 GB not because I wanted to do that, but
because it was getting difficult to find 30 GB and smaller drives over
the counter, and I didn't want to stockpile a bunch of old drives that
I paid too much for, or have to seek out on-line sellers (of which
there still seem to be plenty).

But here's what happened. When I saw an ad for Staples or Office Depot
selling an 80, 100, or 120 GB drive for $29.95, and then 19.95 after
the rebate, I picked it up. So now I have a pile of drives larger than
I'll need but at least I don't feel like I paid too much for them. Now
it's rare to seen one on sale over the counter that's smaller than 160
GB and I'm back to the same "30 GB limit" problem as before the BIOS
upgrade, only the bytes are bigger and the dollars as smaller. And I
don't expect there will ever be another BIOS upgrade for that
motherboard.

But I expect that I have enough drives to last me for a lifetime of
active projects, and of course I can always store backups on something
else and transfer to "Mackie-sized" drives should I ever need to go
back to them.

The other day I got a phone call from someone I recorded in 1978 asking
if I still had the tape. By golly, I did, and by golly, it played (and
sounded) just fine. Will I be able to play a WAV file from a hard drive
in 30 years? I think I have some text files on an 8" floppy from about
that same time period.

[Mike Rivers]

AndyP wrote:

> Do you know if there is a HD-based device with no AD converters that just
> stores multiple tracks of digital audio, maybe with ADAT inputs?

That's too specialized for any commercial manufacturer to sell for a
sensible price, but you can still find second (or probalby now third or
fourth) hand Mackie MDR24/96 recorders pretty cheap. The MDR was
originally sold with analog I/O cards to compete with the
soon-to-be-released Alesis HD24, but the I/O cards are interchangeable
and you can get ADAT Optical, ADAT+TDIF, AES/EBU, or analog. You may
have to do some shopping and horse trading to get what you want, but
it's a solid unit and at least to some extent repairable and still
supported at least as far as advice and repairs.

Or you could get a new Alesis HD24 and just not use the analog inputs.
The ADAT optical inputs are no worse for it.

[Jim Gilliland]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" wrote...
>>
>> Two suggestions. 1) Update your firmware. Alesis has
>> made regular improvements in this area.
>
> I'm using 1.15. I am very reluctant
> to mess with it as it is otherwise working just fine.

That's reasonably current. Still, even the latest build (1.20) has been out for
more than a year now, so it's a pretty safe upgrade.

>> 2) Try a different brand of drive. I just installed a 100GB Seagate
>> ($50 at Microcenter) with no problems whatsoever.
>
> Yeah, I've tried four different brands and it behaves the
> same with all of them.

I'm surprised to hear that. I can't think of any failure that would cause this
kind of problem. Certainly, the HD24 is somewhat picky about drives. I
consider that a good thing - I'd rather have it reject a drive at mount time
than to fail with it at record time. But I'm surprised that you'd run into that
many failures, yet still find that the smaller drives work correctly.

>> And I'll repeat my usual "advertisement": Anyone who owns an HD24
>> should be a member of the Yahoo HD24 group. We have over 1600 members
>> now in a very active and growing user community. It's a very useful
>> resource for HD24 owners.
>
> Alas, nobody there has recommended any solution that
> worked. But I'm happy with 30GB. That is enough for
> 2-3 live concerts at 6-8 tracks each. I don't really want
> any more eggs in that basket.

Agreed. My "advertisement" was aimed more at others following the thread than
at you.

> Despite the HD issue (which, as you demonstrate, most
> other people aren't seeing) I'd still far more trust the
> reliability of the HD24 for live-event recording (especially
> unattended) than any compuer-based solution.

I agree with that, too. <g>

[Steve Scott]

A nice "secret" machine: http://www.akaipro.com/prodDPS24.php

I've used it for almost 3 years, and also just bought the new MK II
version. Outstanding sound and flexibility. Record and mix with ears
and faders instead of video displays and mouses.

100 mm touch sensitive motorized faders, with full automation. 56 bit
mix bus. Eight direct ADC inserts, with 2-Track bus. 24 tracks at
44.1/48, 12 tracks at 96k. Excellent non-destructive sample level
editing with quality jog/shuttle wheel, with audio scrubbing.

Two monitor outputs, two headphone jacks, also studio cue with talkback
and main L/R outs. Four aux sends, 8 groups. 5.1 mixing is available.
Channel EQs and dynamics of course. Four onboard FX. You can also
run VST plugins from a computer using ADAT (included), if desired.

I run mine with external SCSI drives, 30 ft away in a machine closet
(using the optional SCSI card). So no disk noise at all in the studio.
No fan in the unit either.

About $2800. User forum here:
http://dpsworld.vibestudio.net/viewforum.php?f=1

Steve

[coreybenson]

On Jan 26, 9:34 am, Jim Gilliland > wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > Yeah, I've tried four different brands and it behaves the
> > same with all of them.
> I'm surprised to hear that. I can't think of any failure that would cause this
> kind of problem. Certainly, the HD24 is somewhat picky about drives. I
> consider that a good thing - I'd rather have it reject a drive at mount time
> than to fail with it at record time. But I'm surprised that you'd run into that
> many failures, yet still find that the smaller drives work correctly.

I find it interesting as well. Richard, I'm running 1.20, and have been
since about a week after it came out. I'm regularly using 250gb drives
in my HD24... so far, I've only had one drive failure (a 20gb that hit
the floor, but works perfectly in a computer. Go figure!).

> >> And I'll repeat my usual "advertisement": Anyone who owns an HD24
> >> should be a member of the Yahoo HD24 group. We have over 1600 members
> >> now in a very active and growing user community. It's a very useful
> >> resource for HD24 owners.
>
> > Alas, nobody there has recommended any solution that
> > worked. But I'm happy with 30GB. That is enough for
> > 2-3 live concerts at 6-8 tracks each. I don't really want
> > any more eggs in that basket.

Fair enough, Richard! I definitely understand the "If it ain't
broke...", but, it kinda sounds like yours is a bit broke, so to speak.
Maybe not enough to be worth chancing it, but...

If it works for your uses, I'd keep going the way you are. I'd replace
mine tomorrow if someone stole it!

Corey

[Frank Stearns]

"Soundhaspriority" > writes:

- Snip -

>In my opinion, the standalone hard disk recorder is technically obsolete,
>and a poor dollar value.

Right up until the point when the crappy windows OS (or Mac or even Linux)
decides to take a nose dive during that irreplaceable live take.

It might take months, it might take a year... but given the nature of what
a modern, general-purpose OS is trying to do, it *will* happen.

While the same can happen with a stand-alone HD box, the chances are
probably an order of magnitude+ less because the OS has been honed/built
specifically for one application. That's ALL it does.

Even heavily tweaked and configured, a general-purpose OS can never get as
close. There's just too much under the hood.

We're running the HD24XR, often these days at 44.1. Having grown up on
Ampex MM1000s, MM1200s, and ATR100s, I'm continually amazed at all aspects
of the performance of the HD24XR, particularly at the price point.

The Fireport (firewire transfer aid) is a must. The 10 MB ethernet port is
a joke.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

"Soundhaspriority" > writes:

>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > writes:
>>
>> - Snip -
>>
>>>In my opinion, the standalone hard disk recorder is technically obsolete,
>>>and a poor dollar value.
>>
>> Right up until the point when the crappy windows OS (or Mac or even Linux)
>> decides to take a nose dive during that irreplaceable live take.
>>
>You make a statement about computers that may not be true. Personally, I
>don't see any hard evidence for it. It sounds more like prejudice, based
>upon what was true in the past, rather than the present state of affairs.

Oh, I dunno 'bout that. The five Windows machines parked in this office
provide some interesting anecdotal evidence about my take on things...

Then there's my old college buddy who was employee #64 at Microsoft --
wow, does he ever have some stories to tell as to why Windows is as it is,
both good and bad...

Last but not least are the 15,000+ users of one of my software products,
and the OS-related stories that many of them have told me over the years.

No windows OS is a real-time OS. They can sort of look like it at times,
but no, they're really not. You go to Wind River Systems (developers of
the Mars rover software platform), or one of those kinds of folks, or you
purpose-build your own, such as is used in the HD24XR, RADAR, et al, to
get the reliability demanded of such software.

If you've had good success with a retail, general-purpose OS, that's great
-- but I hope you're running a backup. Spend enough hours at it and you
will get bitten. (Reliable as it is, we always run some sort of backup to
the HD24XR.)

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio

--

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
>
> "Frank Stearns" wrote ...
>> "Soundhaspriority" writes:
>>
>> - Snip -
>>
>>>In my opinion, the standalone hard disk recorder is technically obsolete,
>>>and a poor dollar value.
>>
>> Right up until the point when the crappy windows OS (or Mac or even
>> Linux)
>> decides to take a nose dive during that irreplaceable live take.
>>
> You make a statement about computers that may not be true. Personally, I
> don't see any hard evidence for it. It sounds more like prejudice, based
> upon what was true in the past, rather than the present state of affairs.

I have worked in both fields (computers and audio) for several
decades. I can assure you that Mr. Stearns' characterization
is shared by a great many of us who have tried using general-
purpose computers for live-event recording and have been burned
(sometimes severely charred with 2nd & 3rd degree burns :-(

The "present state of affairs" only gets WORSE as operating
systems are "improved". (Also from bitter, first-hand experience.)
Note that not only do none of the "improvements" have anything
to do with real-time performance, but many (most) of them actually
make real-time performance WORSE with layer upon layer of useless
eye-candy, etc.

Seems axiomatic that attitudes appear to be "prejudice" to
those who have not experienced it first-hand.

[[email protected]]

On 2007-01-26 said:
>Despite the HD issue (which, as you demonstrate, most
>other people aren't seeing) I'd still far more trust the
>reliability of the HD24 for live-event recording (especially
>unattended) than any compuer-based solution.

I'm waiting for some property to sell to do our remote rig,
and I've had a few people suggest this unit. wIsh that
Mackie still did the 24/96.
My basic battle plan, dismount the disk, give it to the
client, let 'em do what they want with it where they want.
SOunds like I'd need two of these for 16 tracks.

DOn't want to mouse and fool around or fight with the system
overhead of a screen access program for a gui along with
trying to capture 16 tracks of decent sample rate and bit
depth audio. THat solution just isn't going to cut it here.
Hoping Alesis finds a solution to your problem.

Keep us posted here on the newsgroup. I don't yahoo.





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



Braille: support true literacy for the blind.

[Richard Kuschel]

On Jan 25, 11:53 am, "Fletch" > wrote:
> Okay, so there was the thread about preferred recording medium, about
> which many said they were digital, and some were in the box, now.
>
> Though I'm on DA-88's, and rather happy with them, I have a reluctance
> to move "forward" to HDD based recording. However, repairs on 88's is
> often rather expensive, too.
>
> That thread made me begin to wonder about the stand alone systems, such
> as Radar and others. If I were to jump over to HDD, I would then put my
> 88's in the role of 'back up' and archive storage.
>
> What would be the group mind on which system is the most robust
> reliable and durable? Prefer at least 24/96 format, removable (easily
> swapped) media type rig, but if there is alternative that is better,
> would consider that, too. And if they crash (not the drives, though
> that would be horribly disasterous), are repairs reasonable?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --Fletch



For easy portable reliable use, the Alesis HD24 is probably the least
expensive solution out there.

Use it for location sound , Fireport the tracks into ProTools or your
other editing system of choice.

You can get 24/96 on 12 tracks of one of these machines, however I have
had no complaints at 24/48 which is a default operation for 24 tracks.

Need more tracks? These things are cheap, as are the IDE drives. 160
gig is a ton of recording time.

One caveat. If the power is jerked before the recording is stopped, you
will have a recovery project on your hands. to avoid this, pre-format
the drives with a blank recording that is longer than the concert will
last. That way, the recording will be seen as an overdub and will not
be lost.

[Richard Kuschel]

On Jan 26, 3:49 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "Frank Stearns" > wrote in ...> "Soundhaspriority" > writes:
>
> > - Snip -
>
> >>In my opinion, the standalone hard disk recorder is technically obsolete,
> >>and a poor dollar value.
>
> > Right up until the point when the crappy windows OS (or Mac or even Linux)
> > decides to take a nose dive during that irreplaceable live take.You make a statement about computers that may not be true. Personally, I
> don't see any hard evidence for it. It sounds more like prejudice, based
> upon what was true in the past, rather than the present state of affairs.
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA



I use computers in the studio all the time and they are not nearly as
reliable as stand alone recorders.

Freezes and crashes do occur and they are no respecter of operating
systems. The Alesis HD24's of which I have two have been dead solid.
(Western Digital Drives have been a problem, but that is because they
wouldn't initialize) I bought the second just because it was a PITA to
pull one out of the rack for remote gigs.

Even with 24 channels of preamps and a 24 channel mixer for monitoring,
I have way less invested than your 8 channels of 744T's.

Would I buy a 744T? You betcha, unless I decide on a DEVA or HHB
instead. Will even that piece of lovely gear replace the HD 24 ? No
Way.

[Les Cargill]

AndyP wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
>>This is why I like my Mackie HDR24/96. And unlike your SX-1, it uses
>>some standard hardware components, and there are still a few people at
>>Mackie who know it well enough to support it as long as parts last.
>>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Do you know if there is a HD-based device with no AD converters that just
> stores multiple tracks of digital audio, maybe with ADAT inputs? It would be
> nice to use something like that instead of a PC. I think it would make a
> very flexible system together with external mic preamps and converters.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>


The Fostex VF160 is one, but it has D/A and A/D of its own, too. It
is limited to 44.1/16 bit - although the A/D will produce 24 bit
tracks if the ADAT interface to which they are connected is
so configured. Dunno if they're *real* 24 bit tracks ( I don't have
any machinery with a better than -96dB noise floor), but
they're certainly 24 bit.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> "Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Soundhaspriority" > writes:
>>
>>- Snip -
>>
>>
>>>In my opinion, the standalone hard disk recorder is technically obsolete,
>>>and a poor dollar value.
>>
>>Right up until the point when the crappy windows OS (or Mac or even Linux)
>>decides to take a nose dive during that irreplaceable live take.
>>
>
> You make a statement about computers that may not be true. Personally, I
> don't see any hard evidence for it. It sounds more like prejudice, based
> upon what was true in the past, rather than the present state of affairs.
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894
>
>

See also "The sword of Damocles." It's not the actual failure that's
the problem - it is the potential for the failure. It only has to happen
once.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> "Thomas Bishop" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>>
>>>You make a statement about computers that may not be true. Personally, I
>>>don't see any hard evidence for it. It sounds more like prejudice, based
>>>upon what was true in the past, rather than the present state of affairs.
>>
>>I'll show you hard evidence for it. Read my thread on Audition that keeps
>>crashing. I can't work until I have it sussed out or learn a different
>>program. I'm trying to save some cash for an HD24, but then I'll have to
>>rely on inserts and direct outs for preamps. It is completely true that a
>>dedicated HD recorder is more stable than a "wonder-box" computer. You
>>cannot argue that fact.
>
> Thomas,
> Of course, one cannot argue with fact. The problem is determining what
> the facts are. If you're having problems with Audition, too bad, but that's
> no reason to condemn computer recording. I use Steinberg Cubase to record,
> and have never had a problem.
>
> Because there are many configurations of capture device, computer, and
> software that do not work, it leads to the erroneous conclusion that real
> solutions are unreliable. Should computer recording be judged by the worst
> experiences, or the best?
>
> I just read your thread. I have never had a Cubase crash. I can record
> ten channels at 24/96, with a 1.3gHz Centrino, but there is a checklist.
>
> Don't condemn computer based recording just because Audition is a bad
> program. Give me a call if I can help sort it out.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894
>
>


This is not the point. Not the point at all.

One can talk to many, many users of HD24 type boxes that have had
zero, nada, no failures at all.

One cannot call a DAW software vendor ( in general ) and have a
specific, integration engineered solution that can be guaranteed
to operate to any specific level of reliability. Yes, there
are people who make DAW-orented, even preinstalled DAW
computers that are relatively turnkey, but since errata for
the parts in those are an evolving thing, as are drivers,
patches to the O/S and the host software, one cannot
*guarantee* the thing fit for high reliability use.

With an HD24 type box, one *can*.

If the .22 plinking rifle used by a hobbyist jams,
oh well - no harm done. If the rifle used by a soldier
in combat jams, people may die. While SFAIK, nobody
has ever died because of a missed recording, the metaphor
holds.

And if your DAW has not yet crashed, you ain't hittin
it hard enough :)

--
Les Cargill

[Jim Gilliland]

Richard Kuschel wrote:
>
> For easy portable reliable use, the Alesis HD24 is probably the least
> expensive solution out there.
>
> One caveat. If the power is jerked before the recording is stopped, you
> will have a recovery project on your hands. to avoid this, pre-format
> the drives with a blank recording that is longer than the concert will
> last.

Or bring a UPS.

[Thomas Bishop]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
> Of course, one cannot argue with fact. The problem is determining what
> the facts are. If you're having problems with Audition, too bad, but
> that's no reason to condemn computer recording. I use Steinberg Cubase to
> record, and have never had a problem.


I do not condemn computer based recording. I will NEVER use a hard disc
recorder in the studio. I will also be very glad when I get my computer
system back up and running. I will be taking it out in the field and
putting my faith solely on the laptop. But that does not prove that a
computer is more (or even equally as) reliable as a dedicated hard disk
recorder. HD's ARE more reliable, but I prefer my laptop for the
convenience and ease of use. They are different tools, each with their own
strengths. I'll use the computer now, but when I get to a more serious
point in my location recording then I plan on using multiple HD recorders,
at least for backing up the PC.

[Mike Rivers]

Thomas Bishop wrote:

> HD's ARE more reliable, but I prefer my laptop for the
> convenience and ease of use.

Convenience and ease of use? Where's the big red RECORD button on your
laptop? Where are the track arming buttons? How tiny are the meters?
How many pieces are there to your portable recorder? There's at least
three - the computer, the power supply, and the audio input box. And
if you need 24 inputs, you probably need three boxes, and their
cables.

I can bring my Mackie in under one arm, plug it in, connect three
snakes, to the connectors on the back of the box, and be ready to go
before you even get Windows started. Sweep a finger along all the
track-arming buttons, push the Record button, and I'm recording. And
if I choose to, I can record to a disk drive that I can remove and
connect to a computer for mixing or backup. How can you possibly have
a laptop-based recorder that's more convenient and easier to use than
that?

> I'll use the computer now, but when I get to a more serious
> point in my location recording then I plan on using multiple HD recorders,
> at least for backing up the PC.

Huh?

[Richard Crowley]

Richard webb wrote ...
> SOunds like I'd need two of these for 16 tracks.

Not sure what that means?
The HD24 records 2-4-6-8-16-24 tracks (your choice)
If you had two of them, you could record 48 tracks.

> DOn't want to mouse and fool around or fight with the system
> overhead of a screen access program for a gui along with

I believe most of us agree strongly with that sentiment,
particularly for live event recording where there is no
"take two".

> trying to capture 16 tracks of decent sample rate and bit
> depth audio. THat solution just isn't going to cut it here.
> Hoping Alesis finds a solution to your problem.

There is no problem with recording 16 or 24 tracks that
I know of. I have done both with no issue. You may have
misunderstood what I wrote? My only problem as been
mounting hard drives >30GB. But apparently most
everyone else has no problem with this. I will readily
acknowledge that I have a unique problem that is NOT
seen in the product generally.

I have done recordings where I handed over the hard
drive to the customer while we were rolling up the mic
cables.

[Richard Crowley]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
>> Seems axiomatic that attitudes appear to be "prejudice" to
>> those who have not experienced it first-hand.

> That is correct. I haven't experienced it. Perhaps I didn't make
> a mistake setting up the laptop :)
>
> I'm putting on my asbestos suit, Richard :)

If you think this effect is a result of "mistake setting up the
laptop", you exhibit an alarming naiveté. You are setting
yourself up for a huge crash. Good luck. You will most
definitely need it.

[[email protected]]

On 2007-01-26 said:
>"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
>>>>In my opinion, the standalone hard disk recorder is technically
>>>>obsolete, and a poor dollar value.
>>> Right up until the point when the crappy windows OS (or Mac or
>>>even Linux)
>>> decides to take a nose dive during that irreplaceable live take.
>> You make a statement about computers that may not be true.
>>Personally, I don't see any hard evidence for it. It sounds more
>>like prejudice, based upon what was true in the past, rather than
>the present state of affairs.
>I have worked in both fields (computers and audio) for several
>decades. I can assure you that Mr. Stearns' characterization
>is shared by a great many of us who have tried using general-
>purpose computers for live-event recording and have been burned
>(sometimes severely charred with 2nd & 3rd degree burns :-(
>The "present state of affairs" only gets WORSE as operating
>systems are "improved". (Also from bitter, first-hand experience.)
>Note that not only do none of the "improvements" have anything
>to do with real-time performance, but many (most) of them actually
>make real-time performance WORSE with layer upon layer of useless
>eye-candy, etc.

True enough, and let me say this to BOb.

You're a hobbyist. I don't want to have to tell a
payingclient that the os ate his recording. I don't get
paid for that kind of unreliability, so a standalone
unitwhich does nothing but audio is what i want to put the
audio onto for the client.
I get paid for the results, not for making excuses for an
operating system which tries to do your books, play your
games and surf the net. IT's like showing up on the
construction site with one of those everything in the handle
of the tool jobs and syaing you've got professional tools.
THe everything in its handle tool's handy for the quick fix
and the get out of trouble, just as the glittery os that
plays games balances your books and surfs the web is sure
nice in the office, but in the remote truck at the live
recording session I don't care how pretty the operating
system appears to the user, I don't care about a firewall, I
don't give a rat's rear end if it can download a file and do
my books at the same time. THat's for later when the
project's done, the cables have been coiled and the
microphones stowed. wHile I'm on the job and the client's
dime the audio is going to either go to the network feed or
to storage media for later use.

IF you're a diletante you can play games with your operating
system, and if it crashes tell the guy you're recording for
grins we'll have better luck next time. I tell the client
that chances are I don't get paid.




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



Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for
dinner. Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> I can bring my Mackie in under one arm, plug it in, connect three
> snakes, to the connectors on the back of the box, and be ready to go
> before you even get Windows started. Sweep a finger along all the
> track-arming buttons, push the Record button, and I'm recording. And
> if I choose to, I can record to a disk drive that I can remove and
> connect to a computer for mixing or backup. How can you possibly have
> a laptop-based recorder that's more convenient and easier to use than
> that?

Yeah, but you can't check your myspace or download the latest Paris
Hilton sex video can you? :-)

[Romeo Rondeau]

> I believe most of us agree strongly with that sentiment,
> particularly for live event recording where there is no
> "take two".

Pussy :-)

[[email protected]]

On 2007-01-27 said:
>Richard webb wrote ...
>> SOunds like I'd need two of these for 16 tracks.
>Not sure what that means?
THinking of sample rate. was under the impression at 96 khz
you could get only eight with the Alesis.
Might be wrong there though.

One question for hd-24 users. How easy is it to just pop
the drive at the end of the session and hand it to the
client?



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



THe only people who listen to both sides of an
argument are the neighbors.

[Richard Crowley]

Richard Webb wrote ...
> >Richard webb wrote ...
> >> SOunds like I'd need two of these for 16 tracks.
> >Not sure what that means?
> THinking of sample rate. was under the impression at 96 khz
> you could get only eight with the Alesis.
> Might be wrong there though.

12 tracks @ 96KHz. But I never had occasion to do 96K
for location work. The quality of the mics/feed, the noise
floor, etc. never warranted 96KHz recording.

> One question for hd-24 users. How easy is it to just pop
> the drive at the end of the session and hand it to the
> client?

If they have a Fireport to plug the "tray" into and the
associated application that transfers the files in their
selected file format (WAV, AIFF, SD1, DIG/SD), then
it litteraly takes seconds to dis-mount the drive, pull it
out of the slot and hand it over.

But if the customer needs raw WAV (etc.) files on their
own drive, it takes a few more minutes to transfer. I have
plugged my Fireport and an external raw drive into my
laptop and transferred 16 channels of a 1 hour 45 minute
program onto their hard drive in <15 minutes.

[Les Cargill]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Soundhaspriority" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>- Snip -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In my opinion, the standalone hard disk recorder is technically
>>>>>obsolete,
>>>>>and a poor dollar value.
>>>>
>>>>Right up until the point when the crappy windows OS (or Mac or even
>>>>Linux)
>>>>decides to take a nose dive during that irreplaceable live take.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You make a statement about computers that may not be true. Personally, I
>>>don't see any hard evidence for it. It sounds more like prejudice, based
>>>upon what was true in the past, rather than the present state of affairs.
>>>
>>>Bob Morein
>>>Dresher, PA
>>>(215) 646-4894
>>
>>See also "The sword of Damocles." It's not the actual failure that's
>>the problem - it is the potential for the failure. It only has to happen
>>once.
>>
>
> True, but the general opinion of computer based systems is skewed by the
> fact that many people cannot get theirs to work. The real question is, "Of
> those systems that have been proven to work in the short term, how reliable
> are they in the long term?"
>
> People on this forum can throw out their personal anecdotes, but such does
> not serve as a survey. And those who are most likely to talk are the ones
> who have had problems. It cannot answer the question. And without an answer,
> all we have are people's biases.
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894
>
>
>


That is because people do not have an overwhelming store of facts at
their disposal to inform those biases. All we can do is cut and try.
Nothing in the machinery provides any sort of instrumentation, nor
any means of doing that instrumentation yourself - even if
you were so inclined.

So people for whom reliability is the principal value will
gravite towards dedicated machines. And there's nothing
wrong with that, especially if we can get the captured
data off the machines and into a DAW.

Let me ask you this: Could you hang out a shingle providing integrated
systems running Cubase for the general public? Would you be able to
provide any sort of bond or warranty to indemnify all customers
against failure? If so, how much would it cost? Would you be able to
design and implement all the redundancies necessary to support
this?

With Cubase on yer average Best Buy special computer, there is
no accountability for reliability, nor is there any hope of such.
And we couldn't aford it if it *was* available.

--
Les Cargill

[Thomas Bishop]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> Convenience and ease of use? Where's the big red RECORD button on your
> laptop? Where are the track arming buttons? How tiny are the meters?
> How many pieces are there to your portable recorder? There's at least
> three - the computer, the power supply, and the audio input box. And
> if you need 24 inputs, you probably need three boxes, and their
> cables.

The big red RECORD button is a mouseclick in the transport control. The
tracks stay armed in my "template" file. The meters are no smaller than
those on your HDR. My recording setup is one big piece: a 14 space rack
with laptop, sound card, external hard drive, accessories drawer, input
panel on the back, and room to grow. Yes, if I want more channels then I
will have to add expansion cards, but they will go in the empty spaces in
the rack.

> I can bring my Mackie in under one arm, plug it in, connect three
> snakes, to the connectors on the back of the box, and be ready to go
> before you even get Windows started. Sweep a finger along all the
> track-arming buttons, push the Record button, and I'm recording. And
> if I choose to, I can record to a disk drive that I can remove and
> connect to a computer for mixing or backup. How can you possibly have
> a laptop-based recorder that's more convenient and easier to use than
> that?

Where are your preamps? Not in your "under-the-arm" box. Honestly, Mike,
when is the last time you walked in to a gig with the HDR under one arm and
three cables in the other hand? That's not likely for anyone in our
profession; we all know that you're no sound engineer unless you're carrying
a box of microphones, some adapters so that if you have to plug in to a
turtle's butt you can (not to mention the tools needed to pry the turtle's
ass open). Plus, where's your gaff tape go? ;)

You have an extra step by having to transfer the files to your PC for
editing. That's the convenience issue that I argue. To setup my rig I put
my laptop on top of the rack, plug in the AC and the Firewire cable, plug in
the one power cable from the rack, patch the channels, open the software and
hit record. It's really not that difficult.

>> I'll use the computer now, but when I get to a more serious
>> point in my location recording then I plan on using multiple HD
>> recorders,
>> at least for backing up the PC.
>
> Huh?

I plan on buying an HD24 (then another one for 48 tracks) so that I can tap
the inserts or use the direct outs of the FOH/monitor console when I need
to go that route. The next step is a rack of high quality preamps so that I
use a splitter, into the preamps then into the HD24(s). From there I buy a
truck where I track directly to PC but backup to the HD24's. My point is, I
plan on using hard disc recorders because they ARE more reliable.

[[email protected]]

On 2007-01-27 said:
>> >Richard webb wrote ...
>> >> SOunds like I'd need two of these for 16 tracks.
>> >Not sure what that means?
>> THinking of sample rate. was under the impression at 96 khz
>> you could get only eight with the Alesis.
>> Might be wrong there though.
>12 tracks @ 96KHz. But I never had occasion to do 96K
>for location work. The quality of the mics/feed, the noise
That helps.

>> One question for hd-24 users. How easy is it to just pop
>> the drive at the end of the session and hand it to the
>> client?
>If they have a Fireport to plug the "tray" into and the
>associated application that transfers the files in their
>selected file format (WAV, AIFF, SD1, DIG/SD), then
>it litteraly takes seconds to dis-mount the drive, pull it
>out of the slot and hand it over.
>But if the customer needs raw WAV (etc.) files on their
>own drive, it takes a few more minutes to transfer. I have
>plugged my Fireport and an external raw drive into my
>laptop and transferred 16 channels of a 1 hour 45 minute
>program onto their hard drive in <15 minutes.

<bummer> Oh well, get the port and just buy raw drives to
hand to customers. i"m intending to do this where we just
hand you the drive, take it where you want to for mixing and
playing tweaking in your daw, whether that be a real pro
facility or your basement.
THe Mackie unit would be preferable to me actually, but it's
discontinued <bummer>.



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



Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel when it's not.

[Jim Gilliland]

wrote:
>
> One question for hd-24 users. How easy is it to just pop
> the drive at the end of the session and hand it to the
> client?

Just press the dismount button and pull it out by the handle. Couldn't be simpler.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" wrote...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> My only problem with it is that it won't mount any of my
>>> hard drives >30 GB. It "gives up" and fails before the
>>> drives are ready (apparently?)
>>
>> Two suggestions. 1) Update your firmware. Alesis has
>> made regular improvements in this area.
>
> I'm using 1.15 Because none of the subsequent releases
> mention anything about fixing this problem. And I don't
> believe in "fixing" things that aren't "broke". I have never
> heard anyone recommend upgrading the firmware except
> as a "it can't hurt" recommendation. I am very reluctant
> to mess with it as it is otherwise working just fine.
> ...
> Alas, nobody there has recommended any solution that
> worked. But I'm happy with 30GB. That is enough for
> 2-3 live concerts at 6-8 tracks each. I don't really want
> any more eggs in that basket.


You might want to grab some of the Maxtor 2F040L0 drives while they're
still around. 1/3rd height 3.5" drive, super quiet, very low power --
includes the 32mb capacity limit jumper.
http://search.ebay.com/2f040l0

[Lugnuts]

What it comes down to for me is live I want a standalone disc recorder
(ie alesis HD24). Studio I use the more versatile option (DAW).

Mike

On Jan 27, 9:00 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
> Thomas Bishop wrote:
> > HD's ARE more reliable, but I prefer my laptop for the
> > convenience and ease of use.Convenience and ease of use? Where's the big red RECORD button on your
> laptop? Where are the track arming buttons? How tiny are the meters?
> How many pieces are there to your portable recorder? There's at least
> three - the computer, the power supply, and the audio input box. And
> if you need 24 inputs, you probably need three boxes, and their
> cables.
>
> I can bring my Mackie in under one arm, plug it in, connect three
> snakes, to the connectors on the back of the box, and be ready to go
> before you even get Windows started. Sweep a finger along all the
> track-arming buttons, push the Record button, and I'm recording. And
> if I choose to, I can record to a disk drive that I can remove and
> connect to a computer for mixing or backup. How can you possibly have
> a laptop-based recorder that's more convenient and easier to use than
> that?
>
> > I'll use the computer now, but when I get to a more serious
> > point in my location recording then I plan on using multiple HD recorders,
> > at least for backing up the PC.Huh?

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
> > I can bring my Mackie in under one arm, plug it in, connect three
> > snakes, to the connectors on the back of the box, and be ready to go
> > before you even get Windows started.

> Yeah, but you can't check your myspace or download the latest Paris
> Hilton sex video can you? :-)

Oh, I bring the cell phone along for that. I can even order the pizza
with it.

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> Here is another point: A modern computer has what is known as a hard,
> journaling file system. FAT is a soft file system. You may recall that loss
> of power or disk crash caused serious file corruption with FAT. But NTFS is
> a hard file system. This means that with the vulnerability of the cache
> internal to the disk drive, all writes are physically written before they
> are recorded as written. The "journal" allows the file system driver to back
> up the block tables to the point where data was actually written. This means
> that what's written can be read.

That's interesting. I didn't know aobut that difference. As one data
point, the Mackie HDR24/96 uses FAT32 but it's not a Microsoft
operating system. If you lose power during a recording or have a crash
due to some other failure, the only loss is the file currently being
recorded. This can be an embarassment if doing a live multitrack
recording, but if it's an overdub, you won't lose anything but the
overdub. The recorder closes the file being recorded when you press
the stop button or every 15 minutes, whichever comes first. So the
most you'll lose is 15 minutes of the recording, assuming you get the
power back.

Still, losing power probably means something else besides the recorder
will go down too - outboard preamps and signal processors, for
instance. So if your reputation depends on it, whether you're using a
computer or dedicated recorder, it's a good idea to carry a UPS. Small
ones are pretty cheap and portable. It may not be the optimum power to
run your recording gear on, but it won't damage it and it will
certainly keep it going until you can decide what to do.

> interesting to note that Sound Devices has always advocated practices that
> imply they are not fully confident of the long term stability of their file
> system. Any coding error anywhere in the Blackfin firmware that causes a
> crash will lead to a damaged file system. They do provide a "fixdisk."

I suppose that's a safe thing for any manufacturer of a data storage
device to tell you. "Something might happen. Your data is never
completely safe, but we won't be responsible in any case."

> The company that wrote Audition has a very bad history in
> real time software. Their video editing product was a horror

Adobe didn't write Audition, Syntrillium did. I don't know how much of
the original company came over with the transition, but at least the
program had a good start. From all appearance, Adobe didn't do a
complete rewrite so it's not likely that they broke anything based on
their video editor.

Hey, I don't trust DAWs either, but while I recommend dedicated
recorders for one-time events, I don't discourage people from using
their computers as long as they're aware of the potential problems and
are confident that they're OK.

[Mike Rivers]

Thomas Bishop wrote:

> The big red RECORD button is a mouseclick in the transport control. The
> tracks stay armed in my "template" file. The meters are no smaller than
> those on your HDR. My recording setup is one big piece: a 14 space rack
> with laptop, sound card, external hard drive, accessories drawer, input
> panel on the back, and room to grow.

My ergonomics is better than your ergonomics, but if you don't mind
using a mouse, I guess that's OK. My finger on a button is more
accurate than a mouse pointer on the screen when I'm in a hurry. If
you have 24 meters on your screen, either you have a mighty big screen
or they're smaller than on my Mackie. But the important thing to me is
that someone else smarter than me designed and tested my recorder. I
don't have to worry about what I might have forgotten to test.

> Where are your preamps? Not in your "under-the-arm" box. Honestly, Mike,
> when is the last time you walked in to a gig with the HDR under one arm and
> three cables in the other hand?

Any time I'm using someone else's mixer and mics, which is most of the
time. If I need to bring preamps, I also need a mixer for monitoring
(no latency, thank you) and I'll bring an appropriately sized analog
mixer.

> You have an extra step by having to transfer the files to your PC for
> editing.

Not me. I play the tracks back through the studio console and mix to
the computer. If there's any editing to be done it's done on the
mixes. Unless it's going to be fixed or added to in the studio, in
which case it stays on the HDR. And if you haven't noticed, a Mackie
HDR24/96 is a very capable editor if something needs to get moved,
muted, or replaced. I don't work on projects where I need processing
on every track so the console can handle that.

> I plan on buying an HD24 (then another one for 48 tracks) so that I can tap
> the inserts or use the direct outs of the FOH/monitor console when I need
> to go that route.

That's my preferred way of working. The less gear I have to carry, the
happier I am. But I always scope out what's available and only use it
if I trust it.

> The next step is a rack of high quality preamps so that I
> use a splitter, into the preamps then into the HD24(s). From there I buy a
> truck where I track directly to PC but backup to the HD24's.

Oh, to have clients that wealthy. I used to have a truck and did a
split. But people wanted more capability and wanted to pay less for
it, so that's why now I'm a sometimes-working hobbyist.

Good luck with your plan. Start with a lot of money.

> My point is, I
> plan on using hard disc recorders because they ARE more reliable.

My point as well.

[Nick Brown]

On 28 Jan, 00:36, Chel van Gennip > wrote:

> That is not completely true. In fact a FAT filesystem does handle crashes
> quite well, (it was the default filesystem of the most crashing OS). The
> reliability depends on the software that implements the FAT system, how
> often the fat is written, how often directories (file length) are updated
> etc . BTW drives may do strange things when loosing power during a write.

There's an element of luck involved. With FAT if the machine crashes
or you lose power while the directory index is being updated, there's
a good chance of the whole index being corrupted. With journalling
file systems like NTFS, the changes to the index are logged separately
first, so if the worst should happen during the index update itself,
the log can be used to subsequently fix the index.

There are umpteen different journalling file systems available today
and whether Microsoft's NTFS is a good example of one, I'm not able to
say, but I've seen hundreds of NTFS based computers reboot or power
down in the middle of some activity, and while there has in many cases
been loss of data that was being written at that moment, I've never
seen the kind of catastrophic loss of whole directory structures that
can just occasionally happen with FAT.

I do agree though that the way in which FAT is used can make a
difference. I don't have any information to offer but I'd certainly
like to think that in a well thought out recorder, the designers will
have been able to tailor the way data is written to give the best
chance of it surviving an unexpected crash or restart.

I've never known my Akai machines to crash, and power-cuts are rare,
so I don't worry about using FAT on them. If I was going out and about
recording gigs, I might worry a little - enough to do differently? I
don't know.

Cheers,
Nick

[Nick Brown]

On 28 Jan, 11:49, Chel van Gennip > wrote:

> This discussion is about hard drive recorders. On such recorders the number
> of files is smal, and the bocksize on disk is big. The result of this that
> the dirictory structure normally only is one directory block, containing
> the file name, first block, file length, and some information about
> creation an modification times. As there is only one block, the whole
> directory can be updated with a single write. The problem you mention is a
> problem that exists in a situation with many files, subdirectories etc.
> Even when writes are delayed by the write cache in the drive, the
> situation on disk normally is consistent.

Agreed. As I said I don't see it as a particular problem for a well
designed HDR. From some of your posts I got the impression you didn't
recognise jounalling file systems as having any inherent value, which
I thought worth responding to.

>
> In a more complex situation, with many files, subdirectories, extensive
> buffering by the OS, multitasking etc. a file system journal might improve
> reliability. The combination NTFS/NT (and NTFS only comes with a MS OS)
> the result still is very vulnerable. an example of that you find elsewhere
> in this same thread:
[snip]
> (His conclusion that filesystem and OS are perfect, and the damage was
> done by the write cache in the disk just is untrue, the write cache in
> the disk can and must be controled by the OS, especially for journal
> writes of a journalling filesystem)

Agreed, though survivability might be a better word than reliability -
the journal doesn't stop Windows from crashing, just hopefully leaves
less of a mess on disk afterwards.

As an aside, there was an interesting investigation a couple of years
ago where it was found that some hard drive manufacturers were quietly
rigging the firmware on their drives to not flush the write buffer
when requested by the OS, if the disk was busy. This was an attempt to
cook the performance figures. I've no idea how widespread this was or
is.

-Nick

[Nick Brown]

On 28 Jan, 13:23, Chel van Gennip > wrote:

> Does the disk support the "Flush Cache" command? It is part of the
> specification of a disk. A disk that specifies support does have to
> support it. Specifying it and not supporting it may make the vendor viable
> for all damage resulting from this failure. Most (all?) current disks do
> specify it.

As I recall, the gist of it was that the drive was running with write
caching enabled, and was claiming to flush when requested by the OS,
but in fact was deferring the write until it had some free time. If
that really is happening, I'd agree that data loss would be the fault
of the drive manufacturer, assuming it could be established that the
OS was acting correctly. Making it stick would be another matter
altogether.

-Nick

[Jim Gilliland]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Richard Kuschel wrote:
>>> For easy portable reliable use, the Alesis HD24 is probably the least
>>> expensive solution out there.
>>>
>>> One caveat. If the power is jerked before the recording is stopped, you
>>> will have a recovery project on your hands. to avoid this, pre-format
>>> the drives with a blank recording that is longer than the concert will
>>> last.
>> Or bring a UPS.
>
> Or bring a laptop, which doesn't have this problem.

That's because the laptop has its own built-in UPS. If it ran on AC, it would
be equally vulnerable. In any event, the laptop has its own set of issues.

[coreybenson]

> > Or bring a laptop, which doesn't have this problem.
>
> That's because the laptop has its own built-in UPS. If it ran on AC, it would
> be equally vulnerable. In any event, the laptop has its own set of issues.

Such as: $1k (or more) for 24 AD/DA converters, $1500 for a decent
laptop, $500+ for software to handle the recording, etc.

Gee, that's almost double the price, plus it ends up not being NEARLY
as bulletproof as the Alesis HD24 has been.

Ah well, to each their own.

Corey

[Tobiah]

>
> That is not completely true. In fact a FAT filesystem does handle crashes
> quite well,

The original point of the individual that brought up FAT was that it
is not 'journaled'. A filesystem that is journaled, can take repeated
losses of power without ever corrupting the filesystem. You lose only
the writes that were in progress at the time of the failure; in the case
of an audio recording this is likely just a few seconds.

With any other type of filesytem, including FAT, the OS may be able
to tidy up and get through piecing together where the valid data is,
but quite often, while running the cleanup utility, moderate to massive
filesystem corruption can result from slamming down the disk during
a write. Particularly for instance, if it happened to be caught
in the middle of updating the "*F*ile *A*llocation *T*able" when the
power went out.

Tobiah

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com