{ "numMessagesInTopic": 11, "nextInTime": 687, "senderId": "G3JHwYUmzfXtoQ4Wg14RljDOHHc04gRnxLrmuMM67TfrKCgPpuAAxunbEdsjAe0rjdBaK36vO-qe-XK4e1M9il7coQ", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: HDR 2496 X HD24 - MIKE, NEED HELP", "from": ""Mike" <mrivers@...>", "authorName": "Mike", "msgSnippet": "... inadequate ... There s nothing (other than marketing literature) that says to me that either disk writing format is better for multitrack recording than", "msgId": 686, "topicId": 683, "spamInfo": { "reason": "0", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 0, "messageBody": "
> 1 - It seems that the Alesis HD has a more reliable format (FST)inadequate
\n> It doesn't use FAT 32, which according to them, proved
\n
> for multitrack recording.There's nothing (other than marketing literature) that says to me
\n
\n
> 2 - The Alesis HD 24 has a faster seek time.I'm not sure what you're looking at to conclude that, but how fast
\n
\n
> 3 - It's got two bays for hd backup. You can back up on the sameThat's a convenience for sure. You can swap both recording and
\n> machine. Huge convenience.
\n
\n
> 4 - Although it's got no VGA port and their editin' is somewhatI do, too. If you already own, or plan to invest in a separate
\n> modest, I entirelly agree with their marketin' target point.
\n
\n
> And then I could add Mytek converters to get 24 bit/ 96 kzinstead
\n
> of their standard 48kz. Not to mention the quality of sound IThe HDR24/96 can now handle 96 kHz sampling rate through the AES/EBU
\n> would get for sure.
\n
\n
> I said above that the cost x benefit would be better in theoryThat's the most significant point you've brought out. At this time,
\n> because the Alesis unit is not out yet and nobody knows how it
\n> will behave.
\n
\n
> Mike, I know you're here to somehow back Mackie up, but I needNo, I'm not here to back up Mackie. I worked for them for a while,
\n> your honest opinion on the issues I pointed since you have a
\n> great expertise on the subject.
\n
\n