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:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 15 May 2006 09:28:22 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

This is definitely the most expensive and time-consuming part of any archiving. The transfer stuff 
is actually pretty easy -- this might bruise our audio egos but it's true. Stuff that obsesses this 
list, like what format to transfer into, how much hard drives cost, etc, that's trivial too --  
again, no offense to our egos. The uncommon, expensive and prized part of the equation is that rare 
individual who is expert in the content, has the patience to wade through all the source material 
and is organized and with clear enough communication skills to catalog and describe the archive so 
it is accessible. Even more valuable is that person with a wide and deep historic knowledge so they 
can not only list/catalog but provide context. I am not confident that there are enough such 
individuals to keep track of the vast majority of recorded sounds, and very valuable/important 
material will and does fall through the cracks.

I'm working on a project right now that will end up being a pretty valuable public resource because 
it will probably be the largest bunch of this kind of audio content in one place available for 
public use. The only reason this project is feasible is because the person who produced the original 
content made copious, detailed notes and even provided some context and sometimes even reviewed the 
content or performance. This makes it affordable and feasible for a trained archivist to slice, dice 
and catalog the audio transfers in a sensible way in a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable cost. 
This stands in very stark contrast to another large project I did for a corporate customer, which I 
doubt will ever be properly understood or cataloged because there simply is no institutional 
historical knowledge available to properly understand or explain it. At least that customer had the 
foresight to take the content off decaying media and put it into their IT storage system, the idea 
being that it might be useful one day (and, ironically, it was much cheaper for this company to add 
hard drives into an already robust data farm than to pay attention or money to maintain boxes and 
boxes of tapes; the client made it pretty clear the tapes would be dumpstered despite my protests).

Anyway, despite what our egos may say, our digi-toys and tape machines are a small part of what's 
really needed with all of this. Once again, you can't ever automate or replace a knowledgable and 
skilled human being, and a true archivist with all those skills I mentioned above is a very rare 
bird.

-- Tom Fine


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study


> Part of the management cost is that of providing access to the file, i.e., cataloging.  That is a 
> huge expense since it requires a great deal of time. LC is doing this now as it works its way 
> through various broadcast collections.
>
> There may be one "Your Hit Parade" file of, say 26 programs- a broadcast year's worth, but the 
> file is
> opaque until the songs performed on it and those singing them are cataloged, item by item.
>
> Steven Smolian
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study
>
>
>> On 13/05/06, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>>
>>>> II.     Sound engineers and technicians: [1] perceived needs for
>>>> standards or "best practices" to facilitate sharing of preserved
>>>> material,
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I disagree here. The cost of management is basically a cost per item (or
>> file). The number of bytes in a file has little effect.
>>
>> As storage disks get bigger, the same number of files on the same number
>> of disks can be of higher quality with no extra cost.
>>
>> A high quality file might be at most six times the size of a low quality
>> audio file. Now compare the change in disk capacity from the 5 1/4 inch
>> floppies of 20 years ago to the DVDs of today.
>>
>>
>> There is also an argument in favour of high quality sound for oral
>> histories. In the future it may well be possible to perform computer
>> analysis of speech patterns, accents, and voiceprints which are not
>> possible today. Oral history material will reveal many things to
>> researchers which those who simply want a text transcript of the words
>> have not considered.
>>
>>>
>>>> how such standards/practices should be determined,
>>>
>>> Both scientific testing and industry consensus
>>>
>>>> and how
>>>> often they should be subject to review
>>>
>>> Probably every five years or so. Perhaps more frequently at the cusps
>>> of technology.
>>>
>>>> and by whom;
>>>
>>> Industry experts as well as scientists
>>
>> Regards
>> -- 
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/2006
>> 

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

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