On: P. Maliphant’s Discussion (GEOPHYSICS, 52, p. 816, June 1987) of “Alternative processing techniques and data improvement provided by single‐sweep recording,” by S. W. Belcher, T. L. Pratt, J. K. Costain, and C. Coruh (GEOPHYSICS, 51, 1736–1742, September 1986).
It is clear that the field cost of recording single sweep Vibroseis data or any other form of nonsite‐processed data increases at least in proportion to the tape cost. Picking the example of 9-track 1600 bpi (phase encoding) drives may not be of direct relevance in Europe, where most recording is on 6250 bpi (GCR) decks, but the hardware cost of adding another 6250 bpi drive, plus possibly some small additional necessary pieces of equipment, is of order of $100,000. Costs would be less in purchasing a 1600 bpi drive but savings made over the cost of the 6250 bpi system would quickly be lost by extra tape cost. Most real Vibroseis crews nowadays have a higher data rate than that suggested by the 48 traces mentioned in Maliphant’s discussion. Additional daily cost would, therefore, be much larger than $1300/day.