Re: AW: CFC Speeds for Repeater

[Gunnar Backman <brakophonic@telia.com>]

Hi

I got this of the Electrix Forum since I had problems with my Simpletech 256 MBCF

"Recently I bought Pretec 512MB I-Grade CompactFlash Disk (Hitachi SAH05) Ref: CFH512EHG and it works perfectly."

Gunnar Backman
Brak(E)man Prod/Brakophonics
E-mail  brakophonic@telia.com
http://www.brakophonic.com


> As far as I understand it, CFCs destined to work are those with a
> Hitachi chipset (information from Electrix or from their user group, and
> they weren't more specific as to which chipset of Hitachi. Guess it's
> the one which was available when the Repeater was released). From
> sustained write/read speed, you can do the math yourself, ending up with
> something well below 1MB/s.	
>
> Rainer 
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tom Griesgraber [mailto:tom@thossounds.com] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Januar 2005 19:12
> An: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Betreff: CFC Speeds for Repeater
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Like many folks I got a new digital camera for Christmas, and it of 
> course came with a pretty small CFC.  In buying a new one for it I 
> learned that some manufacturers are now giving write speeds on their 
> CFC.  I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with this and the 
> Repeater.
>
> Lexar is making CFC that are labeled things like 4X, 8X... and I've 
> seen as high as 80X.  For my camera I opted for a 512MB 40X which they 
> claim is capable of a sustained write speed of 6.0MB per second (they 
> say nothing about read speeds). "X" to them means 150KB per second. I 
> tried this card in the Repeater and while it seemed ok for some small 
> mono loops, as soon as I tried stereo recording the Repeater instantly 
> reported "CFC SLOW"
>
> I also tried the 16MB Lexar 8X that came with the camera and got the 
> same results (stereo looping was too much for it).
>
> So.. The SimpleTech 128MB I bought from Electrix years ago is still the 
> biggest CFC I've found that works.  Of course.. there's always the 80X 
> Lexar (?)
>
>
> Anybody have any other findings?
>
> Thanks!
> Tom