Neil Young on digital audio: You're doing it wrong

The RAID controller card crashed and corrupted all the drives to the point where they were unusable. We had to do a full restore, which took 48 hours. This is an eternity in the fast-paced world of post-production, where they want everything yesterday.

There were two or three other cases where backup tapes (DTF2's and LTO3's) went bad, and in that case, this was a project that was several years old where the drives were long since wiped. My own preference is to save copies of the project on hard drive and LTO5 (or the newer LTO6 format), but I don't always get to vote.

 

Anybody else think this would be a good alternative or an addition to hard drive back-up in the digital future? We all know how durable discs are if handled correctly. I bet there are people out there who have had one particular CD or more since 1982 (when they went on sale) which is in just as good condition now as it was back in 1982, if it's been handled correctly over the years. Discs are certainly more easy to handle without damaging them and are far less delicate than reel to reel tape when handling.

 

No, cumbersome at best, difficult to monitor and test let alone storage labeling nightmare. If your that paranoid, just do another HDD backup. Can never have too many.
Elvis

 

I think pressed CD's have a much longer lifespan than burned CD/DVD media

I have pulled CD's I've burned a few years ago & packed away only to find them all rotted & unreadable

 

ouch!!

 

All of my CD's are still in perfect condition as I handled them all with care.

 

I'm a little confused. Did Neil Young recommend a certain way of backing up data?

 

Much like I'm snickering at your post right now.

 

Another problem with this (as with all technology actually) is technological obsolescence. If blu-ray goes the way of the dodo as a data storage medium (as floppy discs have) then finding a drive that can read your BD-Rs in the future could be a problem. In 5 years? Probably not, but in 20...? Optical media seems to be decreasing in popularity as more and more portable computers are being sold without drives to save space and make the machines smaller. Of course Blu-Ray was originally touted with the ability to have up to 8 layers, so if they ever release discs with more than 2 layers, it could extend it's life potentially. 200GBs of storage on a disc would be great, however with mulit-terrabite drives becoming the norm...

 

But, in that case you'd just transfer it to the new standard technology. Just like folks who used camcorders that accepted VHS tape back in the day transferring everything over to DVD later down the road. And in this case, at least it won't be such a horrendous slog.

 

Send your floppy disks to me. My old Dell desktop PC still has a functioning floppy disk drive. I'll put your files up on The Cloud for you.

 

What if the floppy disks contain short videos using an old RealPlayer codec. Can you transcode to H.264 before uploading?

 

If that's the case you must've stored these CDs in your garden shed! I've got CDs which I burned in 2003 and are in just as good condition now as they were in 2003.

 

I'm not sure why, but that isn't my experience. Many of my CDs which I've burned are no longer playable, and they don't have to be that old. I have a very high failure rate with CDRs. On the other hand, I've almost never encountered a commercial stamped CD that has become unplayable. It's happened, but it's so rare that I don't worry about that.

 

Not really no, this thread just seems to have drifted on to that subject, but with Neil's vision of high resolution digital storage on a Pono, no doubt he believes in digital storage in the studio as well, which is something that is very important and could determine what is released in the Pono Music store.

 

nope, they were in a cardboard box, in a closet, inside a dry room upstairs

and also in various CD cases on bookshelves etc

it's like the metallic part sandwiched inside the plastic started to oxidize or something, there are dark grungy patches & also missing bits altogether. it usually starts around the edges, so I suspect air or something creeps in

similar to this:



ah, here ya go:

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

"Disc rot is a phrase describing the tendency of CD or DVD or other optical discs to become unreadable due to physical or chemical deterioration. The causes of this effect vary from oxidation of the reflective layer, to physical scuffing and abrasion of disc surfaces or edges, including visible scratches, to other kinds of reactions with contaminants, to ultra-violet light damage and de-bonding of the adhesive used to adhere the layers of the disc together."

"In CDs, the reflective layer is immediately beneath a thin protective layer of lacquer, and is also exposed at the edge of the disc"

 

I've never ever heard of or seen disc rot in my life before. Since my last post I've realised that I've actually got a CD copy of The Cars Greatest Hits which was released in 1985. A family member brought a copy when it was released and has since given it to me, and it's still "like new".

I must admit that a few of early CDs have got scratches on them, but that's my fault for not keeping them in their cases and handling them incorrectly.

 

Lets get back to the original topic this thread is supposed to be about. Yes Neil, we are doing digital wrong if you're referring to CDs or MP3s.

In the studio digital technology in recording, mixing and mastering has advanced... the CD format is still stuck in 1982 (with what musicians and engineers were using then).

 

Hmm, to my ears, high resolution audio material (LPCM 24/192, 24/176, 24/96, 24/88 & DSD64/DSD128) and its properly down-rezzed/dithered+down-sampled standard resolution version (LPCM 16/44, i.e CD quality) sound virtually indistinguishable (I would not be able to pass an ABX test)...

 

And neither would anyone else in this thread, regardless of what they claim. It's kinda funny how tens of thousands of people on the internet swear that there is a clear difference between redbook and hires, yet not a single person can come forward with a clear and verifiable proof. Not to mention the fact that this person would gain worldwide fame and could make tons of money from marketing and promotions, companies like Pono would be all over him/her.

 

Nor can anyone come forward with clear and verifiable proof that these folks are not hearing a difference between redbook and hires as they personally claim. It's what they hear!

 

High Res is the new Green Marker.

 

I disagree about the opportunity. If audiophilia has taught me anything, it's that high quality sound only matters to a very, very small percentage of the population. And that has always been true. And of those few, even less numbers make up the "I can absolutely hear the difference with high-rez" group.

With the Pono "testimonials", we don't know:

• What recordings they listened to
• The provenance of those recordings
• The resolution of those recordings
  
• The technical details of the playback device
• The technical details of the remaining signal chain all the way to the speakers/headphones

...and Pono seems to want it that way.

It's ironic in a way, but I suspect the Pono people don't necessarily see audiophiles as having interests that are compatible with theirs.

 

C'mon, man - I can hear the difference from the other room, with the door shut, faucet running, while my wife is talking to me, with cotton stuffed in my ears. Everybody with ears can, silly...

 

Tell me a way that someone can prove that there is a difference (noticeable to the human ear) between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 192 on an internet music forum?