[BC] Oh No another automation comparison question

[Larry Fuss]

> The original system setup & configuration is definitely not for the timid,

but the day-to-day operations, once configured, is not much more complex
than 
any other computer-based system. With a good, computer-literate Engineer 
available, getting the AudioVault up and running should not be that
difficult. Once 
it's running, it just works.

My complaints about AudioVault:

1) Configuration is difficult.  Even minor changes are not something that
can typically be handled locally.  Configuration is definitely not
user-friendly.

2) Newly recorded spots are not immediately shown in the database, which has
to be rebuilt every so often.  That's terribly inconvenient.

3) If the audiovau.mbd file gets corrupt, as it often does, you have to
delete it and rebuild it.  Then the color schemes for the tabs have to all
be re-set.  (The color schemes are stored in a different file in Version 9,
which solves that problem).

4) The AudioVault does a poor job of running satellite.  It works, but it's
clunky.

5) If you forget to load a new log, it turns into a pumpkin at midnight.
Other systems, like AirForce/StorQ just go back and repeat the log from the
same day of the previous week.  It beats being off-air because somebody
failed to load a log.

LF