Print

Print


This NYT article pointing out a very high cost of digital storage vs.
traditional/legacy/non-digital storage has become the subject of discussion
on another forum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?_r=1&

From reading the article though, I don't see any evidence that the "cost"
of traditional/legacy/non-digital storage includes the cost of maintaining
the proper playback equipment. As we well know studios don't typically make
that attempt. But given that the cost of digital storage as profile in the
article includes migration to replacement storage media when existing
media/drives/systems/etc.. reach their end-of-life and the potential access
problems as digital formats evolve, including the cost of maintaining
equipment to support full retrieval of traditional/legacy/non-digital
archives seems like a no-brainer.

Certainly the Mercury/Everest experience with 35mm audio should be evidence
enough to support my criticism that the comparison is severely flawed. What
do the rest of you think?