Although just based on comparison of two CF-cards, it might be interesting to share that I noticed a clear difference in results between two CF-cards:

Trying to max out the polyphony to 8 voices (4 stereo samples played from CF-card), I wasn't able to get more than three (6 voices) on a (2nd hand) SanDisk Ultra II (256 MB). Also some hiccups at 6 voices.

A new 'Roland' 512MB did far better: 8 voices without hiccups.

that's interesting, i had to test my 606, i have a 512mb and some other little formats (64mb,128mb and 16mb)

I was actually surprised to observe this clear a difference. So clearly the message is to try different cards if stuttering etc is experienced.

Initially I thought the scanning of the pads to be the reason that you can't successfully start ~4 (stereo) samples at the same time, but with the Roland 512 MB CF this went smoothly. Maybe I should try 8 pads with each a mono sample to see where that card 'collapses'...

Whatever the reason, the brand/type or card-size, I keep that SanDisk around for easy things & have bought a few additional Roland CF-cards... life's too short for card-hassle

BTW, I'm using multitracks of songs, to have a clear indication when timing is shifting.

CF card definitely definitely matters, and old ones do wear out.

Hi,

Can sure agree with the first part, the first two CF-cards I obtained for the SP-606 behaved differently.


About the second part, out of curiousity I did some reading (wiki etc) and while the number of writing-cycles is sure not endless,
it's 'very far away'. Reading does not wear out the card.

At least in my case, the writing wasn't faulty, it's just that one card managed to 'multitask' more samples up to the max polyphony,
while the other crapped out before that.
Playing indiv. samples on the latter was still fine.


But either way, thanks for your comment since it triggered me to read (and now write about the CF-lifetime, and what I read
gave me more confidence in CF-cards (which I hadn't used before I got my SP-606, although it obviously all comes down to flash,
which is of course about impossible for a person _not_ to use in any of the other formats like SD, USB-sticks etc )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash#Reliability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling


Bye!

agreed, you get a decent lifespan out of them - but the number of writes goes up quicker than you think.. everytime you resample, delete, import, etc.. all adds up!

It would be interesting to get a brand new card and do some endurance testing, would need to come up with an automated way to write to the card though which could be difficult

Hi,

It'll sure be more writes than we're aware of. On smaller cards there's also the required removal of the original wav-files.

But the numbers don't add up (see various webpages, say http://improvephotography.com/749/memor ... liability/).
I don't use my SP-606 on a daily basis. For 2nd hand cards (which the I-need-a-CF-card-quickly SanDisk was) one can't know
the history, but even if it was a professional photographer he'd have a hard time wearing out this card.


BTW, sometimes I get the message that there's not enough space left, while theres say ten times more space than the size of the file which is being imported.
Does the SP-606 perhaps use the free space as a laaaarge working memory for the file conversion/import ? (so many writes here as well...)

I also noticed that simply re-trying often helps, which would not agree with my previous assumption about working memory...


But long story short, the feeling about a new fresh card will be always better. Any savings for lesser stuff is not worth it if you loose
data. So I got me a few additional of those 512MB Roland-labelled cards - one might expect that if one selects a type, one could best select these...

Bye!