Re: best music to game by

Eric P <ericpNOSPAM06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:12:40 -0700, Keith Davies hath written thusly
(in article <slrnevk9q7.3l0.keith.davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Eric P <ericpNOSPAM06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Spiffy! Now, as I'm studying to become an audio engineer, I wonder if
music labels will consider making the DVD the standard medium for
distributing "albums" at some point, or if they'll stick with CDs till
another innovation emerges. But, I digress ;)

I have seen some albums distributed as DVDs, years ago. Most people are
unable to hear the difference between CD-size sampling and DVD-size
sampling -- and I suspect most of those who claim to be able to are
fooling themselves.

Perhaps those DVDs were made using Red Book Audio standard (16-bit,
44.1 sampling rate), just as music CDs are. I do know that, with DVDs,
many bonus features can be added...which would, unfortunately, drive
the price up.

Well, as I recall I was told by the clerk that they were 'higher
definition than CD' and intended for 'audiophiles' (said in a tone that
suggested 'pretentious gits with money'). They didn't list any more
content than you'd see on the original albums (same track lists).

IRL, probably the most effective means of backup is mirroring. Use a
RAID in the machine (so if you lose a drive you can replace that drive
and the RAID'll 'repair' the data onto the new drive), mirror the
contents of your server to another machine (preferably at another site),
mirror the machine contents onto an external drive and carry it to
another site, and so on.

That strikes me as a good business solution, but for personal home use?
Perhaps excessive.

Perhaps. But if you're talking about business use (such as 'recording
and mastering audio'), how much would it cost to replace an album you'd
finished working with? Or an intermediate step, if you're not done?

DVDs are great for archive, as long as they don't degrade.

They are an immense pain in the ass for operational backup. Too many
disk changes to back it up (unless your server with less than half a
terabyte of store -- just a wee thing -- has a burner that'll handle
*100 DVDs at once*), and if you ever need to restore from it you'll be
there for *hours*, if not *days*, reloading data.

Yikes! Not to be attempted unless you have multiple drives, and even
then...just not practical.

Indeed. An automagic changer might help, but even then 100 DVDs --
assuming no coasters -- will only backup a baby server.

Tape? Tape can be doable if you're willing to shell out the sheckels to
get a good tape drive. Again, store is getting big enough this isn't
always feasible, and tape has been found to be startlingly fragile.

With tape, you have the probem of domains flaking off over time. Then
there's the need to maintain the tape drives.

Indeed. Historical recovery of data from tape is frighteningly
unsuccessful.

Really, the only practical means of operational backup is using drives.
RAID to protect against single-drive failure, removable to backup and
move offsite, or mirroring to offsite storage. Tape can be done if you
can get the speed and data density you need, but that gets *expensive*.

Audio tape is expensive as well. A reel of 2" tape (yes, it's still
used in the industry, though many folks favor DAT/ADAT or HD24) costs a
bundle, and using an MTR with 2" tape is a bit of a chore, but tracking
to it has advantages over tracking to a digital medium.

Then there's the issue of archiving tape. Some companies find the need
to store theirs off-site, which also gets costly.

Backup of any kind, on-site, is generally a bad idea from a disaster
recovery perspective. Sure, on-site makes it efficient to recover from
a blown drive... but when the office burns down, you're fucked.

And yes, I believe that *is* the industry-standard term for that
situation.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Sometimes my brain is a very strange
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx to live in."
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxx -- Dana Smith
http://www.kjdavies.org/
.

Loading