The Greatest Music Collection

Gustin Johnson gustin at
Wed Mar 26 18:32:23 GMT 2008

Hash: SHA1

> When you think about the logistics of it, it really would be a major 
> undertaking to transport it, warehouse it, and then convert it, and store the 
> results.  I don't know how many singles are in there vs. 78s vs 33s and 
> whatever, but just figuring an average of 30 minutes per record and 10% 
> redundancy in the collection, that's about 8.25 years of recording 24/7.

I would hope that you are not encoding them one at a time :)
> CD quality recording is 10 MB per minute uncompressed, and let's assume you 
> compress on the fly and save 50%, which is really optimistic.  That means you 
> still need 21,600,000 MB of space to store it all.  Is that ~21 terabytes or 
> ~21 petabytes?  I think it's petabytes isn't it?

A mere 21 terabytes.  If you could afford the collection you would not
even notice the cost of the digital storage (the physical storage
requirements would be more expensive).  Bandwidth would be a different

> Anyway, that's a lotta hard disks, and you would surely eat up more than a few 
> turntables recording all this too.  I could see your project getting into 
> $4,000,000 territory very easily.  Maybe $5,000,000.  Plus the costs of 
> keeping all this data alive until you can eventually put it in solid state 
> DNA-based holocubes or something (when you will eventually be able to carry 
> this collection around hooked to a gizmo that pipes the audio directly into 
> the auditory receptors in your brain, for over eight years of continuous 
> tunes on the go.)

Regular hard drives are enough.  Access management and bandwidth would
be the hard part.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list