{ "numMessagesInTopic": 12, "nextInTime": 1231, "senderId": "YWC8ndkjMqyGir--lsUkSQVznZutlxhgqSPT0d1RYbKoTbuGOUx6UbpEyxefhf8qS3A6aFv7jCPFMbWHcoz9fo5bYSQPNTv1_uyMOcHH", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [HDR2496] Re: Combining wav files", "from": "Jim Gilliland <gilliland@...>", "authorName": "Jim Gilliland", "msgSnippet": "... Yeah, if speed is an issue, FTP won t be the way to go. But FTP has other benefits. For one thing, it has error correction built in, so you know that the", "msgId": 1230, "profile": "j_gilliland", "topicId": 1220, "spamInfo": { "reason": "0", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 0, "messageBody": "
>Jim,Yeah, if speed is an issue, FTP won't be the way to go. But FTP has other
\n>
\n>AS there are no time stamps in HDR files, this is probably the BEST way to
\n>transfer-my understanding is it makes the entire track full-length, so all
\n>the data stay aligned.
\n>
\n>OTOH, my experience with FTP, especially for 24 tracks, is that it's faster
\n>to simply re-record the data in realtime (in my own trials, FTP was
\n>significantly slower than realtime.)
\n
\n