First of all, I'm not a self-appointed anything; I simply volunteered to manage the FAQ and the card survey since things like that are fun for me. I called you out because I found the way you were dealing with Tom to be really over the top. I don't think he was giving you some sort of company line or stock answer, but simply answering to the best of his knowledge based on the information he has. You didn't get the answers you wanted because he didn't have them, and I think you really were pretty aggressive and pushy. It wasn't necessary. Incidentally, he's not coming back.
That's your opinion. Others have already said stated that they disagree that Tom has been treated poorly. In my opinion, nobody has been aggressive and pushy with Tomuo, other than the we fact that we haven't simply accepted 'use cards on the list' as the only response...inquiring minds want to know more. The only thing I told him is to explain to him in black and white why his responses weren't holding water for me and asking for more. I also said in another post that, as of right now, my unit is a piece of shit to me. As this saga unfolds, that might change, but right now it's a paperweight since I have 0 trust in in.
...and your comment above only states what you THINK Tomuo knows, but you don't know any more than I do. You don't have a clue what information Tomuo knows or doesn't know. Can you read minds? In fact, I think he's holding back because, as others have already suggested, I think it's part of Tascam's risk management strategy. (While encouraging, don't you find it even a little bit 'strange' that they're finally asking for people to send in cards today? Why wasn't this or something similar the response on Day One?)
Finally, if my use of the words 'self-appointed' seemed offensive, they weren't intended to be. I understand that you volunteered to lead the way...just as I've stated I'll do so on the Zoom F8 (I'm still writing my review, but it's going slow and I've grown weary since it's taking so long). I thought they meant the same thing. Either way, it was meant as a compliment and a 'thank you', which I think I stated somewhat in my initial reply.
The majority of the angst I see is simply confusion/nonacceptance regarding the logic of his responses. The response has been that cards aren't fast enough and slow down over time, but that just doesn't make sense given that the cards work in other units. Clearly the throughput of data is fine on a DR680 that has 8 channels, so using the same card, the throughput of data on a unit with 4 channels can't keep up, even sometimes when it's only being used in 2 channel mode? It's not logical...so frankly, lacking a technical explanation for what's happening that accounts for this phenomenon, I just really have a hard time believing that this is simply a card issue. I attempted to find out if buffering was at the source to perhaps help better understand why the card speed response made more sense, but that didn't go anywhere.
I'm not sure how write buffer's work, but I assume it's analogous to 'cache' memory on a hard drive which allows hard drives to operate alot faster because the drive doesn't have to spin idle while the computer searches for free sectors to write to...the computer writes to the cache memory instead. Perhaps it's just another memory chip that fills up with data as it bottlenecks while the unit is searching for free sectors on the SD card.
Again, I think Tom's answer on this was satisfactory, in that he stated he doesn't have access to design docs and isn't an engineer. The statement of "cards slow down over time" absolutely makes sense if you understand how flash memory works and physically degrades over time. The cache memory on a HDD isn't as direct an analogy as you may think, because a HDD doesn't physically degrade in the same way as flash memory. A HDD can certainly develop bad sectors, but generally with good disk management the performance of the disk overall isn't going to degrade all that much unless it's an extreme situation. This is not the case with flash memory - when things start wearing out (and they will), you will start to see performance degradation on a more global scale. SSD drives employ "wear leveling" to help combat this, but SD cards do not.
If the buffer memory on the 70D is significantly smaller than that of the 680 or other multichannel recorders, then to me it's quite logical that the 70D is thus more "picky" with memory cards because cards because a device with a larger write buffer will be able to better compensate for the reduced physical performance of older and/or new but lower-performing cards that now have fewer good sectors to write to. That problem is amplified when recording multiple simultaneous data streams as is the case in audio recording. This is just a theory on my part, but I'd say it's a plausible one. Remember that a card's rating from the manufacturer is based on burst reads/writes; not continuous streams of data. Therefore a card may perform like a Class 10 in a DSLR, but absolutely suck wind in an audio recorder because of the difference in how it's being used - even if it's brand new. That's where media testing becomes important, and where I think Tascam should have had a good list of tested cards ready to go out of the gate upon product release.
That wasn't hard for you and I to do was it?
I don't know squat about how computers work, but if you and I can come up with that 'analysis' over the course of a taperssection conversation as a possible explanation for what's going on, is it REALLY too much to ask for Tascam (not necessarily Tom, but if he doesn't have the answer someone else should) to be able to also provide some degree of explanation for what's going on with this unit to get the hounds off their back? Who knows if the above is a valid line or reasoning. Thus far, we haven't been able to get Tascam to tell us or even suggest a willingness to try, but them requesting a look at a card seems a step in the right direction.
I both agree and disagree. You're right...this point has already been made and there's probably nothing new to discover here. But to me, this is pretty much the whole reason people are balking at the 'stock response' being given. Refer above to my comments about how, without additional explanation, that it's not logical if the data throughput on much larger capacity units is fine and this one isn't. All Tascam needs to do is provide a logical explanation and answer the 'why' question and people will back off. People aren't stupid (especially here where lots of us are technical minded people that like to know how things work) and right now, without additional information, the responses being provided aren't jiving with logic.
I have no idea what the bold statement above means. What does card capacity have to do with data throughput?
Also while I somewhat agree with your "people aren't stupid" statement, I think a lot of people here may have just enough rope to hang themselves with, and I'm including myself in that. I will fully agree however that Tascam needs to look into this more closely and respond with their findings. Tom's suggestion of sending in cards with errors seems to be a good first step in that direction.
Agree.
Honestly, I don't know what card capacity has to do with data throughput.
What I meant was that if an 8 channel recorder can write 8 channels of data to a card, but the same card bogs down or won't work in a 2 or 4 channels unit, when Tascam says that the card is too slow to work in the DR70D, that's not a logical response without additional information...people have asked WHY from the beginning. But Tascam's inability to provide the answer to the why question, IN MY OPINION, in the entire reason this firestorm has continued. Maybe the buffer is the additional info needed...I don't know.
