[peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?

[Phil Edwards]

I've used it with variable results.
You can get a trial copy from

http://www.runtime.org/

The advantage is that you can run an entire scan and you can see if the files are recoverable.
Eventually, if successful, you'll see a directory tree of all your files scroll before your eyes.
The files are then available for viewing but not saving.
However, save the final scan. As the scan takes quite a while. 
This can then be read once youv'e paid and registered.
Make sure you download the appropriate version.
GetDataBack for FAT
GetDataBack for NTFS

If you're not sure.
Then got to Control Panel
In Category View
Open Administrative Tools/Computer Management/Disk Management(Local)
All your disk drives are displayed along with their file systems (FAT or NTFS).

Phil


  -----Original Message-----
  From: peel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:peel@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Susi Maxwell-Stewart
  Sent: 26 March 2008 07:32
  To: peel@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?



  thanks for not lurking too deep in the shadows i am going to try getdataback looks promising for my data 



  ----- Original Message ----
  From: "Paterson, Stuart" <sp400001@...>
  To: peel@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, 25 March, 2008 10:15:05 AM
  Subject: RE: [peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?



  before chucking it or spending a fortune try using getdataback; its what we use at work with a pretty good success rate

  erm and thanks for all the peel links much appreciated.

  okay back to lurking.  cheers



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: peel@yahoogroups. com [mailto:peel@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Susi Maxwell-Stewart
  Sent: 25 March 2008 07:09
  To: peel@yahoogroups. com
  Subject: Re: [peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?



  was your hard drive a seagate cos i have just lost 5 yrs sound and photo work on one and i am about to take it to the shop and discuss this very thing with them 



  ----- Original Message ----
  From: lollygagger <lollygagger@ talktalk. net>
  To: peel@yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Monday, 24 March, 2008 3:21:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?

  The idea of  having multiple backups is because if there is a single fault 
  with a 500gb hard drive all is lost as I recently found to my cost.

  I am thinking of using OGG as my 3rd back up after WAV on hard drive and 
  DVD's. If my home was every burnt down or burgled everything else could be 
  replaced  but not my collection so it's useful having a 3rd back up I can 
  leave with someone else if only for peace of mind.

  So has anyone else other than Roger compared their original recordings with 
  a compressed of OGG at 350kbs using dbpoweramp?

  Ye Roger thanks for that. Our ears might not be as sharp as they were in the 
  olden days but they can't be that bad if I can still make an audible 
  distinction between MP3 WMA & OGG lol

  Play nicely boys. My initial message was just to ask if others had or could 
  make a similar audible comparison with OGG at 350kbs and their original 
  recordings :)



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Alasdair Macdonald" <wewalkforonereason@ gmail.com>
  To: <peel@yahoogroups. com>
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?


  On 23/03/2008, Roger Carruthers <roger.carruthers@ btinternet. com> wrote:
  >
  >    To be honest, I think that .ogg at 1:4 is preferable to lossless 
  > compression at 1:2, because the object of the exercise is to get the best 
  > quality sound into the smallest file size, and if you can't hear the 
  > difference (and not many people of our age can – myself included, and I 
  > have 'trained' ears) then the smaller file size wins.
  >  As I've said before, the vast majority of the material we're talking 
  > about here was recorded to cassette, and you can't improve upon the 
  > quality of the first generation; as you're starting from a fairly limited 
  > bandwidth and dynamic range, you're pissing in the wind with lossless 
  > compression. In short, go .ogg!

  There is no logic whatsoever in your argument. You seem to be saying
  the source is substandard, so making the closest possible digital
  version of that source is pointless.

  And your alternative is a knowingly degraded version.

  Digital compression slits into two camps - lossless, and lossy. The
  purposes of each type are in general rather different.

  Typically, an archivist will preserve a lossless version using a
  compression format that fits their needs - ie portability, speed of
  compression / decompression, and compression ratio.

  Those who prefer to make lossy copies - usually for personal use, not
  for public archiving - have one additional consideration - a trade-off
  - that of file size vs quality. And that's a very personal choice,
  which probably depends upon the abilities of the person's ears.

  It's my understanding that ogg [vorbis] *is* better a better quality
  encoder than mp3 - ie it produces a higher fidelity output for the
  same filesize, but that it suffers the same problem as Betamax - it's
  inferior relative is far more visible to the marketeers.

  It's worth bearing in mind the continuing fall in the price of
  storage. Hard drives of over 500GB can be bought for £60ish these
  days, and by the time you need to purchase the next drive the price
  will have dropped again.

  ------------ --------- --------- ------

  Yahoo! Groups Links





  -- 
  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1339 - Release Date: 22/03/2008 
  16:43



  ------------ --------- --------- ------

  Yahoo! Groups Links








------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sent from Yahoo! Mail. 
  More Ways to Keep in Touch. 





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sent from Yahoo! Mail. 
  More Ways to Keep in Touch.