LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  June 2003

ARSCLIST June 2003

Subject:

Re: Long-term/preservation audio

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:07:40 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (209 lines)

Chris,

"permanent digital archive" is a shorthand for a managed archive. Sorry, I
should have been more specific. Permanence is acheived by migration when
necessary.

When I refer to this, I refer to files in a managed, long-term storage
situation. Some third-party suppliers are starting to provide this as a
service.

I doubt we'll have much trouble reading WAV files in 100 years. They may be
laughed at, but it won't be a problem, I suspect.

Also, when I was referring to CDs, I was referring to red book audio CDs.
That is the pervasive, common denominator.

I'm seeing archives of oral history waste away--I'm managing to personally
help salvage two--I wonder how many more are out there.

One of them had the funding to also transfer to reel (38 hours) and I am
doing that. The other, with a worse problem, is struggling. They have 3000
hours.

I see how hard it is for many people today to get good playback from analog
tapes. Yes, someone like you and me will be around in 100 years to struggle
through playing analog tapes, but it won't be the norm, and it won't be
worth the cost in many instances.

Perhaps my view is skewed, but many of the archives worth saving are, at
the best, good cassette quality. Certainly there are some recordings which
deserve more than red book CD, but many of the archives out there that
provide a snapshot of our world--our voices, our sounds, our thoughts, our
inflections--are seriously not even Nakamichi cassette quality.

We're not talking Metropolitan Opera or Chicago Symphony for most of these
archives, but the cultural significance is no less important.

Perhaps people will want to transfer red book CDs into a permanent digital
archive or some other storage medium in 25-50 years and that is fine. I
don't think the 3,000 tape archive would be around then.

By the way, to put this in perspective. The record machines for the vast
bulk of the 3,000 reels were Wollensaks at 3.75 in/s. Please, will someone
tell me how this audio quality will be hurt at 44.1ks/s, 16 bit? We're
playing these 3,000 tapes on a Studer A807 and recording them onto two Sony
CDR-W33s.

Yes, there is a broad spectrum, but with the generational loss of analog
recordings, we can't go too many generations without serious degradation.
Capturing the sound to digital freezes the losses now.

With the challenges of getting good people to play analog tapes, I cannot
imagine the challenges of getting them to record them as well as possible.
I know some very good analog tape people. I don't see many around.

I'm not advocating destruction of master reels. If a better
playback/encoding scheme is around in the future, the transfers can be done
then.

I see overlapping curves as analog reproduction quality falls and digital
capture quality increases. The trick is to pick a time where the analog
reproduction quality hasn't fallen substantially and the digital capture is
starting to plateau out.

I think you're aware of a major west coast archive on a fishing expedition
to see how much it would cost to transfer 4000 or so assets to files. In
fact, in your day job, I suspect you bid on it, and I wish you well. They
were not requesting analog safeties as I recall it. I think their head is
in the right place.

As I said it's my opinion. You certainly are entitled to yours. I hope
we're not getting into an analog/digital debate, but to me the path is so
clear for the vast majority of archives...but in case I'm wrong, keep the
original reel masters, too.

Cheers,

Richard

At 12:33 AM 6/26/2003 -0400, chris2 wrote:
>Richard,
>
>First, I have to say that I have no interest in arguing analog vs.
>digital at all, and that is not my intention here. The issue is too
>complex to be so black and white. Criteria for proper choice of format
>should be dictated by the
>ability to meet preservation goals and objectives of the collection or
>institution. Having said that I have to say that I disagree with your
>statement. Use of the term "Permanent digital collection" is a bit
>misleading. Where does the assumption of permanence come from? Digital
>archives need an infrastructure to support them and proper maintenance
>and upkeep. Not every institution has the hardware or IT knowledge to
>support a digital archive. Sure, you may not need an IT department, but
>you need, at very least, easy access to someone with significant
>understanding and working knowledge of IT and digital file storage and
>access. Maybe hard drives are getting cheap, but digital preservation
>does not consist of finding the cheapest hard drive available to store
>files on. What about initial and ongoing media and data integrity
>checks? These are not things to take lightly and not things that a cheap
>terabyte drive offers. What about metadata specifications, storage and
>access? What about a migration plan? There has to be policies and
>guidelines in place. Yes, digital archives are a current possibility and
>are actual reality at this point, but they are only an appropriate
>choice if you have the right people, knowledge and systems in place. It
>is certainly too harsh and simplistic to say that someone who chooses
>open reel tape is being "Financially irresponsible".
>In regard to access in 100 years, based on the playback mechanism, I'll
>take the open reel deck in a bet. If you can wrap wire around a chunk of
>iron and move the tape at a constant speed you can get the data off and
>recover something useful from tape. Simple mechanisms and systems that
>can be easily reconstructed beat complex ones.
>The chances of being able to build a machine from scratch in 100 years
>that can play analog tape is much greater than being able to build a
>computer, operating system and drive mechanism that can access a CD and
>then play back the file format stored on the CD. If obsolescence is an
>issue in the analog domain, it's a crisis in the digital domain. Look at
>the rapid changing of technology in the digital domain just over the
>past years. How much data do you think has been lost and is stranded on
>obsolete computers, operating systems and media? There may be more CD
>players than open reel decks that have entered into the market, but that
>is only part of the equation. After you have a drive mechanism, computer
>and operating system there are many more complexities. First, are we
>talking about a data CD or audio CD? If it's a data CD, how is it
>formatted and what is the file system? Is it a CD-R or CD-RW? 650 MB or
>700 MB? What is the file format of the data on the CD? What is the bit
>stream encoding method, sample rate and bit depth? Is there a container
>or wrapper involved? Is the metadata stored internally or externally and
>in what format? How many CDs is the data split over and what is the
>consistency of metadata between them.
>I really say all this to demonstrate the inherent complexities in
>digital storage, and this is only scratching the surface. My description
>of tape is also an oversimplification to some extent, but I'm just
>trying to make a point. Truly, chances are that future archivists and
>librarians will be confronted with a lot of WAVE and PCM data and will
>be able to fairly easily interpret this data. This implies many things
>though that can not easily be glossed over. Also, while Jerome Hartke
>gives good input on CDs, CD may not truly present the best option to
>many institutions and can not so easily be given credit as the best
>stopgap before digital archives are available to the "average archive".
>Depending on the goals and objectives (preservation, interim storage
>medium, access) there may be other viable options beside CD. The
>decision of preservation/destination formats is a big one and worthy of
>careful consideration, particularly for larger collections. There is no
>right or wrong answer at this stage in the game. It's not about if a
>Macintosh or PC is better. It's about which tool is right for the job.
>That's my .02.
>
>Chris Lacinak
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:47 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Long-term/preservation audio
>
>
>Hi, Lance,
>
>Since the quality of reel-to-reel playback is very machine and
>technician dependent I have serious doubts about the playability at
>highest quality of an analog magnetic tape in 100 years time.
>
>By then, the technology will be stone-age. Nobody will be around to
>understand it. No one will care. It's dead technology now. It started
>dying in the 1980s with Ampex leaving the business. Studer is now
>essentially out of the tape recorder business.
>
>What will happen when people like Jay McKnight of Magnetic Reference Lab
>no longer make test tapes?
>
>Can we even buy good blank tape today? For how long? Quantegy and Emtec
>are still in business--the latter is or was in a bankruptcy-type
>restructuring as I understand it.
>
>Few highest-quality recorders are available new today and those that are
>are end-of-life products being kept in production for archival
>migration. The Otari MTR-15 is a special order product but the MX5050
>BIII is apparently available from stock. Studer is currently NOT listing
>the A807 on their Web sites and did a "last call" for this machine two
>years ago.
>
>I personally feel it is financially irresponsible and a waste of scarce
>capital to fund transfers to reel tape today. The money spent doing this
>could be better spent transferring to a permanent digital archive.
>
>The use of CDs is the best stopgap we have before permanent digital
>archives become pervasive, affordable, and robust for the average
>archive user (i.e. not requiring a dedicated IT department). CD players
>because of their huge penetration--more by far than reel tapes ever
>were, I suspect--will be around for years to come.
>
>These are my opinions only.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Richard
>
>At 04:41 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, Watsky, Lance wrote:
> >The question actually posted specifically asked about long term
> >preservation. The problem is not whether or not CD's and DVD's will
> >last for posterity, but if the players will still be around in the
> >future. Although digital and optical media is wonderful for providing
> >access, I believe that the Library of Congress still promotes utilizing
>
> >reel-to-reels to serve as their preservation copies. Can someone please
>
> >correct me, if I am wrong.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager