[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