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 2006

ARSCLIST May 2006

Subject:

Re: National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study

From:

Jon Noring <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jon Noring <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 13 May 2006 15:24:29 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (115 lines)

Richard L. Hess wrote:

> We already have standards for audio files that provide a lot of 
> benefit. I am seeing an attempt to use 24/96 as a standard for 
> everything. While I agree that 24/96 (or I actually prefer 24/88.2) 
> should be the norm for musical recordings, I see the uncritical 
> application of this standard to voice recordings as a waste of money. 
> I do not subscribe to the argument that disks are cheap - their 
> management is not. If the difference in archiving the oral history 
> archive is between 300 TB and 1 PB, there is a huge cost difference 
> there, long-term.

Three comments:

1) A lot of older disk recordings were not recorded at a standardized
   speed. In the transfer stage, it is best to do the transfer using a
   standardized speed (whether or not it is the speed of the original
   recording -- it just needs to be close.) It is during restoration
   when the sound engineer can perform the requisite music analysis and
   determine the exact, actual recording speed.

   What this means for digitizing, at least of pre-microgroove disk
   recordings (don't know that much about tape) is that there is no
   inherent advantage in going with 88.2k sampling, since resampling
   will very likely be necessary to adjust for the original speed
   variation. 96k is more standardized, plus it gives 9% more overhead
   for resampling than 88.2k.

2) Many feel for older recordings, where there may be no audio
   information past 12kHz (other than noise), that 24/96 is overkill.
   However, for restoration, it *may* be important (still to be
   determined) that having a good representation of the *noise* will
   aid in restoration. That is, having an accurate fingerprint of the
   noise (especially impulse type noise found on groove recordings) is
   beneficial. Thus, 24/96 is not necessarily overkill.

3) Storage space is getting to be less and less of an issue. A lesson
   I've learned in the text digitization area (where it is easy to
   collect 5 gigs of scan images for a book) is that one must push the
   envelope. Already there are tens of thousands of books scanned the
   last decade that have to be redone because the quality (resolution)
   chosen was driven by disk space considerations -- as well as a lack
   of future-vision ("I only need it for the moment -- who cares about
   future needs?") It now turns out the quality is insufficient for
   future archival and direct presentation needs, and some of the
   people who did the low quality books scans now wish they put in the
   extra 10% effort to "do it right."

   When it comes to digital preservation, being anal, doing things right,
   and erring on the side of overkill, is Good (tm) -- these are
   virtues. There's no room for corner cutters in the digital preservation
   world.


> A note: Standards are useful for the new technology that we are 
> moving towards or into. I think the term "recommended practices" 
> applies more to how to address the reproduction of older recordings. 
> For example, suggesting appropriate stylus widths for grooved media 
> reproduction would be very useful, but I suspect the best transfers 
> come after analysis, not rote following of a particular standard.

Definitely the issue of playback stylus size for grooved records, plus
what should be used for the pickup (e.g. moving magnet versus moving
coil), are important issues. Eric Jacobs has been experimenting with
moving coil, and although the cartridges are much more expensive, and
the lower levels require state-of-the-art preamps that make one go
"whoa", the results can be remarkable. Although the jury is still out,
in my opinion (and I may be totally off-base here), it seems like
moving coil is better able to track the groove, and get a more accurate
"fingerprint" of both the wanted signal and the noise (see above.)
I'll let Eric clarify where I may be off in my assessment.

Then there's laser pickup, and Eric has been experimenting with that
as well. Don't know where his research currently stands, but laser has
its own unique sets of challenges, problems, and opportunities.


> Metadata interchange is still a challenge as the typical metadata is 
> larger than the usually supported space in a B-WAV file. On a recent 
> project I delivered TXT files with the metadata in a structured 
> format that had the same base file name as the WAV and the MP3 access copies.
>
> I would have preferred to use XML files, and this is an area where 
> some standardization would be useful.

Working with XML for open standard ebook formats (both for content and
metadata), I agree that XML offers a lot of interesting advantages to
structure metadata, which most audio people usually refer to as
discographical information.

For a while I've been advocating that the ARSC fraternity, working
with other entities, develop an *open standard* XML schema for
discographical information. The advantage of this is that discographical
data in such a format is platform- and application-independent, useful
as an interchange format, and there's a huge toolbase, a lot of it
open source, to author and process XML data documents. In addition, since
XML is simply text with markup (the "pointy brackets"), the XML data is
readable with a simple text editor (preferably a UTF-8/UTF-16 compliant
text editor). This makes XML documents eminently archivable and
repurposeable. If one is to digitally preserve discographical information
into the distant future, it is important that the information be in the
most readable form, which is plain text -- proprietary binary (non-text)
encodings (especially of complex data structures) *must* be avoided at
all costs.


Just my usual pontification. <smile/>

Jon Noring


(p.s., I wish I could attend the ARSC convention, but cannot since
I'll be in the other Washington, Washington DC, attending Book Expo to
promote the XML-based ebook standard several of us recently developed.)

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