1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

My HD Test

Discussion in 'Pro Audio Equipment' started by Jay Hudson, Mar 24, 2002.

  1. Jay Hudson

    Jay Hudson Guest

    Mixerman's testamony aside, I did my own HD test.

    Otari MTR-90lll @15ips w/SR w/23 audio tracks.
    HD 88.2 w/23 audio tracks.
    HD 192 w/23 audio tracks.

    The analog chain sounded best.
    88.2 was good but sounded a little choked.
    192 good with better detail and depth.

    I didn't hear the low end question posed by Mixerman but I'm sure his room and ears are more accurate than mine and his test more academic.

    Conclusion: In a great control room experienced ears could debate and ponder.
    In the real world very few would notice.

    A few other observations:

    Sample rates above 48 do not support SDll files, only Wave and AIFF.

    4 minutes basic unedited 23 audio tracks at 88.2 took 1.52gig

    4 miutes basic unedited of 23 audio tracks at 192 took 3.32gig

    Sync IO locked up very quick.

    Much better sound and performance than the 888's.

    Let the stoning begin.
     
  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    Hi Jay

    :) )

    :)
     
  3. MadMoose

    MadMoose Active Member

    Sounds like recording at 192 is just as expensive as 2" tape.
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    No more 45 min 'band debate' about the $200 needed for that extra - virgin reel of 2" to record that - "I am sure we could do it better" - last take.

    The bands tape budget can go in your pocket as a studio owner. The DATA DAT or CDR back up is nowhere NEAR the cost of 2"!

    As producer with digital you can learn how to provide a band with that 'will to get it right' even without the romantic 2' scuffing it's reels in the corner...

    :)
     
  5. Jon Atack

    Jon Atack Member

    Hi Jay and Jules,

    I heard a half-baked shoot-out last week and FWIW (not much...) preferred the Apogee Trak2 at 96kHz over the HD192 at 192kHz.

    Check out the full report here:



    Jon
    Capitol Studios, Paris
     
  6. Jay Hudson

    Jay Hudson Guest

    Howdy Jules and Jon,

    Concerning the backup issue,
    assuming the client wants multitrack storage:

    I'll quess a 24-32 tk session edited withplug-inswill be about 5g @96k and 10g@192 per song(average 4 min)

    That's 65g for a 13 song project @96k and 130g @192.

    That's a lot of CDR's to burn and load.
    Way too many.

    With VXA or AIT it's about 2 tapes($75.00 each) @96k,or 4-5 tapes@192.

    $150.00 for 96k
    $300.00plus for 192K

    $300.00 for 80g FW harddrive
    $????? for 150g harddrive?

    2 reels GP9($150.00 each) @15 IPS w/SR
    $300.00 for about 60 minutes.

    Analog is still the best sounding, most reliable, affordable,recording and back-up media avalible.

    I did talk with the VXA people and they will be releasing VXA- 2 (which has the same transfer rate as AIT-2 ) this summer with only a 20% hardware mark-up from VXA-1.

    :cool:
     
  7. Steve Hudson

    Steve Hudson Active Member

    Jay -

    Thanks for posting the results of your test; I need to come over and hear for myself. And thanks for doing all the math on the relative economics of storage formats; what a handy reference. I would install a 2" machine in an instant if I had room for one in my "machine room" (a bathroom adjacent to the control room that houses my Mac, expansion chassis and drives). I looked for one small enough to sit atop the toilet but....

    Hud
     
  8. DVD rom is much cheaper than Cd rom or tape. $5 or less for 4.4+ gigabytes (50 minutes to write and verify). I haven't tried DVD-RW as of yet...

    Hud sez "That's 65g for a 13 song project @96k and 130g @192."
    That's about a disc a song @96k or 14 discs= <$75
    Then there's always just storing them on firewire drives and shelving em but that's still a little pricier than tape but getting close.
     
  9. When will I learn not to hit that damn "back" button...

    Hud sez "That's 65g for a 13 song project @96k and 130g @192."

    That's about a disc a song @96k or 14 discs= <$75

    Then there's always just storing them on firewire drives and shelving em but that's still a little pricier than tape but getting close.
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    Are you sure that is the 'zippiest' new AIT you are looking at there?

    mabey investigate DDS4 DATA DAT :)
     
  11. Actual storage medium is only a fraction of the expense of recording. Figured this way the differences are less dramatic.
    Ted
     
  12. Jon Atack

    Jon Atack Member

    Jay wrote: Analog is still the best sounding, most reliable, affordable,recording and back-up media avalible.

    Yup. And it will still play back 15-20 years from now if the tape is properly stored. Try that with DATs, CDs, hard disks and DASH tapes 20 years from now, if you can find a machine to play them on. Of course, not all music is worth saving that long, but when it is, analog is the choice.

    Jon
     
  13. Greg Malcangi

    Greg Malcangi Member

    Hi Jules,

    I too currently use DDS3 but DDS4 Data DATs hold 20gig - 40gig each tape depending on harware compression. In other words it may well fit on to 2 DDS4 DATs for about $40. At most it's going to cost $60.

    Greg
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    For anyone else considering making the DDS3 to DDS4 switch - I just did it, and the xfer rate improvement is amazing. I used to get 55-65 MB/minute on my old narrow-SCSI DDS3 drive, and now I get 112-130 MB/minute on my new ultra-SCSI DDS4.

    DDS4 can read the old DDS 3 tapes, but you can't add to a DDS-3 set - you'll need to recopy everything to DDS4 generated tape in order to add data.

    While DDS4 (20GB capacity) tapes are $20+ each, you can write on DDS3 tapes (12GB capacity) in the DDS 4 machine - and I've seen those as low as $10 each. So it's really quite a fast and economical solution. At $10 for 12 gigabytes, we're not that far away from CD-R media costs - with a whole lot more convenience and practicality. And of course, for those really small sessions, you can still back up to CD if you wish.
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    V interesting thanks!
    :w:
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    BTW will it fit into a 'hot swap' bay like my DDS3?

    What do you use? Retrospect? (I do) Perhaps I should move over to Mezzo... That does 'on going' / "in the background" - incremental back ups - don't it? :roll: I am still on a beige G3 !!! (I think that's funny! I dig the old world vibe of that and NOT spending $$ till OSX hits the streets in a big way for DAW work)

    But I imagine anyone in or near the big music cities (LA NYC, Nashville) should concider AIT. Or at least put in a call to a few of the closest PT hire co's to see what is emerging as a 'standard' locally or nationally.
     
  17. Narleysoundz

    Narleysoundz Guest

    RE: Austin Hudley
    The real test would be to track it on 2inch, then transfer it over via 2inch being slaved. Then set PTHD for seperate outputs on half your console no eq or effects and the 2inch outputs on the other half of your console and then compare. This would be the best possible test.
     
  18. MadMoose

    MadMoose Active Member

    At 15ips I can get about 30 minutes of music on a reel, at 4 minutes a song that's seven songs for $150 or less my cost, $175+ tax to the artist. How is digital cheaper at $75 a song? Or did I miss something?
     
  19. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    I think those figures were total (13 songs), not per each song. If you were using 12GB DDS3/DDS4 the whole 65GB project should cost you well under $100 in media costs. But at 5 GB per song, I imagine we are also talking more tracks, or else lots of alternate/virtual takes. Definitely a lot more data being stored than 4 minutes of 24 tracks, which would only come to about 3 GB per song at 24b/96k.
     

Share This Page