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  May 2004

ARSCLIST May 2004

Subject:

Re: Analog Masters

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 10 May 2004 13:32:17 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

Lance:

There is no theoretical reason that there should be a limit on the number of
times a tape with "sticky shed" can be baked.  The only report I have seen
that indicated someone had found a limit was retracted.  The person making
the report realized that the tapes thought to have been baked unsuccessfully
hadn't actually been baked.  He later baked the same tapes successfully.

Another report came out a few years back indicating that baking could cause
microscopic structural changes in the tape surface.  It was later discovered
that these tapes had been baked at over 70 degrees Centigrade rather than
the recommended "baking" range of around 50 degrees Centigrade.

One last comment from the peanut gallery dealing with a preservation issue
concerning analog tape.  We do a lot of disaster recovery work at our lab
and ferric oxide analog audio tape stands up to disaster exposure very well.
If we receive the tape within a few days of exposure, better than 95% of
ferric oxide analog tapes can be restored to playable condition.  Of the
balance, more than 95% can be partially restored so the content, if not the
full quality can be recovered.  This means less than 1/4 of 1% is lost.  You
don't expect to get those sorts of results with digital recordings that have
been submerged.  Of course, the best preservation strategy is redundancy in
geographically separated sites- but- if you only have one copy and something
happens, I'd place my bet on recovering the recording from analog tape
before digital tapes or hard drives.

Peter Brothers
President
SPECS BROS., LLC
(201) 440-6589
www.specsbros.com

Restoration and Disaster Recovery Service Since 1983

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Watsky, Lance
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:41 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Analog Masters
>
>
> Steve,
>
> You made a very good point when you mentioned that "the costs of
> prioritizing are being driven by the need to first find out
> what's on them". I just had a conversation with a Archivist at a
> Religious Institution, who had a reel-to-reel tape from the
> 1970's that she believed needed to be transferred. After talking
> with her and discussing the possibility of the tape having
> "sticky shed", and different transferring options, she finally
> told me that she had no idea what was on the audio tape  and as
> such was having a very hard time raising the funds for the work.
>
> It would seem very clear that before an institution pays to get
> something transferred that they need to somehow listen to the
> recording, especially if the recording was never properly
> cataloged in the first place. The question however, is how to do
> it safely and economically. I wouldn't want to suggest that the
> master tape simply be played for fear of all the oxide being
> ripped off, but I have also read that there is a limit on how
> often a tape can be succesfully baked.
>
> What are your thoughts? Should every recording that can
> potentially have "sticky shed" be baked first, and then be
> transferred to an inexpensive user copy (or cataloging copy) and
> listened to before creating a preservation copy and further
> decisions are made?
>
> Thanks,
> Lance Watsky
> Preservation & Media Specialist
> The Georgia Archives
> 5800 Jonesboro Road
> Morrow, GA 30260
> 678-364-3764 (phone)
> 678-364-3860 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]
> www.GeorgiaArchives.org
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Analog Masters
>
>
> Another long-term problem is related to accessibility, accuracy and
> completeness of the data required to find out what's on the darned thing.
>
> I've dealt with the consequences too many time of folks who bring in 7"
> reels of tape, assuming they're 7-1/2 ips 2 track stereo of a
> family member,
> only to find it's 4 individual tracks, the speed constantly switched among
> 7.5, 3.75 and 1.87 ips,  some portions of which may be family
> members, some
> "hits of the day" with the mike in front of the radio speaker (I recently
> encountered a whole moon landing tape done this way with other stuff
> recorded over it in patches and at various speeds), and some live music.
> The scrawl on the boxes was completely uninformative.
>
> I recall an old science fiction brief story where they were able
> to get the
> entire content of the Library of Congress onto the head of a pin
> and had to
> put up a small moon-sized satellite to hold the catalog.
>
> In short, as we look at past artifacts, it is becoming clearer that the
> costs of prioritizing are being driven by the need to first find
> out what's
> on them.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Analog Masters
>
>
> > On Fri, 7 May 2004, Konrad Strauss wrote:
> >
> > > But do analog copies really make sense anymore? It is a dying format,
> most
> > > tape manufacturers are phasing out their analog tape lines,
> the same is
> true
> > > for tape machines. 2 questions come to mind: what guarantee do we have
> that
> > > present-day tape formulations are robust, and second, what are we to
> play
> > > these tapes on 40 years hence?
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that analog is just not economically viable, or
> > practical...however...some rambling thoughts...
> >
> > Having done some consulting for the State's Department of Information
> > Resources...they had some digital files that were 30 years old.
> We had to
> > send the tapes to the Smithsonian where they had a working tape drive.
> > Then the State had to pay a group of programmers to reconstruct the
> > software to read the files.
> >
> > I am reminded of the project, "Audio preservation: a planning study :
> > final performance report," published in 1988 under the Associated Audio
> > Archives. We still don't have the "universal" storage format recommended
> by
> > that study.
> >
> > For me, it doesn't matter if it is analog or digital, for most (and I am
> > one of those whose favor CDRs) the choice is electromagnetic storage and
> > that is likely to be problematic over time. At least with
> digital storage,
> > refreshing and transferring need not be done in real time.
> >
> > I also wonder about the implications of the recently postulated
> notion of
> > the theoretical limits of information storage and information theory and
> our
> > exponential growth of information.
> >
> > Karl (wondering how much of his work will still be around after he is
> > gone-and at the age of 56, that is likely to be only 30 years or so)
> >
>

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

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