I have not been following this thread too closely.  So, maybe this is 
irrelevant.  But I thought I'd bring the Otari Digital Archive System to 
everyone's attention.
http://www.otari.de/product/audio/das/index.html  Seems limiting to me 
as it is. I wonder how open Otari is to ideas.

Angie Dickinson Mickle
Avocado Productions
Arvada, CO
www.avocadoproductions.com
800-246-3811


Jim Lindner wrote:
> Peter's comment is a good one, and I would like to briefly comment on 
> it. Essentially one must think a bit differently when one looks at mass 
> digitization and there are many different techniques that can be used. 
> Since this is primarily an audio list - here are a few of the 
> innovations that can be thought of. Just because the signal is analog 
> does not mean that new approaches can not be used.
> 
> In the area of 1/4" playback one of the big issues has been issues 
> associated with azimuth adjustment done automatically or perhaps better 
> said to be optimized. Now - frankly, I do not know that everyone 
> optimizes for each playback anyhow - but in a perfect world - if one had 
> the time - one would. One approach that has been taken in the 
> Prestospace project is to develop a new playback head that is based on 
> non-contact magneto optical reading - and there are actually many very 
> tiny heads that are in the MO head. Because of the design the azimuth is 
> essentially perfect - meaning that there is no azimuth error and the 
> playback can be faster then real time. This is one approach - if you are 
> interested in further information may I recommend that you contact 
> [log in to unmask] who is an optical engineer at Hi-Stor which is the 
> company doing the work - I can tell you that they are looking for 
> partners (customers) to determine if there is enough of a market to put 
> the device into production - so your positive input is important.
> 
> This is just one example. You might want to browse around 
> www.prestospace.org to really see some very interesting work. 
> Prestospace is an EU funded project (we are one of the partners) that 
> has been on for several years and has done a great deal of important 
> work in this field.
> 
> The point is to think differently. It is possible - and very interesting 
> results are possible when you do. No one is interested in the reduction 
> of quality - quite the contrary. There are very large opportunities for 
> some of the people on this list who can use their expertise and some of 
> the new technology opportunities. Just because the tape is old does not 
> mean that you need to think that wa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Lindner
> 
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> 
>   Media Matters LLC.
>   SAMMA Systems LLC.
>   450 West 31st Street 4th Floor
>   New York, N.Y. 10001
> 
> eFax (646) 349-4475
> Mobile: (917) 945-2662
> Office: (212) 268-5528
> 
> www.media-matters.net
> Media Matters LLC. is a technical consultancy specializing in archival 
> audio and video material. We provide advice and analysis, to media 
> archives that apply the beneficial advances in technology to collection 
> management.
> 
> www.sammasystems.com
> SAMMA Systems provides tools and products that implement and optimize 
> the advances in modern technology with established media preservation 
> and access practices.
> 
> 
> On May 18, 2007, at 2:00 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
>> Mass digitization-
>>
>> I agree that is a valuable and, possibly, the only currently viable 
>> way to
>> preserve LARGE volumes of audio and video material into the future- 
>> once the
>> material has already been digitized.  Other groups have done it and, 
>> while
>> there have been some spectacular digital-related losses, it has seemed to
>> "mostly" work.
>>
>> I do, however, have a few serious reservations.  While there is no reason
>> you can't automate digital-to-digital migration, no one has been able to
>> clearly explain to me how you effectively automate analog-to-digital
>> migration.  To the best of my knowledge, any proposed (or existing)
>> automated system uses existing analog equipment for the initial playback.
>> This equipment was designed to be manually calibrated and
>> maintained/serviced.  How do you automate or robotically ADJUST the 
>> existing
>> equipment to get the optimal signal off the old analog tape?  While there
>> are a lot of things that can be done to manipulate a signal between the
>> playback and record, if the playback machine is not properly set up 
>> for the
>> tape you are playing, you may be getting a very inferior or degraded 
>> signal
>> to work with.
>>
>> If one is going to leave the world of analog and make a new digital 
>> master
>> (a new master that is going to be the "ultimate" version to be
>> migrated/cloned down thru the generations), doesn't it make sense to
>> actually make a good digital master?
>>
>> That's where the expertise of those on this list is so invaluable.  Of
>> course, if someone has made a little robot version of Steven, Tom, 
>> Richard,
>> etc., please let me know.  I'll set a few of them up in my lab and 
>> retire to
>> the Bahamas.
>>
>> Peter Brothers
>> SPECS BROS., LLC
>> 973-777-5055
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Tape restoration and disaster recovery since 1983
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:58 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what 
>> next??
>>
>> One man's opinions here ...
>>
>> A "standard" is usually a very compromised solution that's a square 
>> peg in a
>> round hole with all the
>> problems on each end of the bell curve. I don't think there's one 
>> answer to
>> any of this and I don't
>> think an uber-dictate is ever a good idea.
>>
>> What should be done is everyone keep on doing what they're doing but 
>> try to
>> be less territorial and
>> feifdom-oriented. If institution X is already digitizing the complete
>> archives of xx and institution
>> y is doing that with yy, x and y should get together and make sure 
>> they're
>> not duplicating work.
>> They should instead share resources and expertise. Then both will get
>> finished earlier and for less
>> money. The saved time and money could be applied by institution z to 
>> archive
>> the complete collection
>> of zz. So, again, instead of asking for a machine I'm asking for the best
>> angels of human conduct to
>> surface. Everyone in the preservation business should do excellent 
>> work so
>> it only gets done once.
>> And everyone overseeing the preservation should keep their ego in the 
>> closet
>> and make sure to check
>> widely and deeply before committing to preserver something, in order 
>> to make
>> sure someone else isn't
>> already doing it or has already done it.
>>
>> Just from the few situations I've observed and/or been involved in, 
>> I'd say
>> if there were more
>> efficiency and communication the job time and cost could be cut by at 
>> least
>> 1/3. And that's with no
>> Buck Rogers auto-inhaler machine sucking away valuable dollars. Just
>> off-the-shelf solutions done by
>> sensible people.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what 
>> next??
>>
>>
>>> How can this be structured in some logical, evolutionary way without
>> having it take 5-10 years and
>>> too many meetings?  Does an organization exist that can oversee such a
>> task without klutzing it up
>>> with too many initial formal concerns?
>>>
>>> Could it be done informally first, on the net, to feed into such an
>> organization withou the net
>>> structure turning wiki?
>>>
>>> And would that organization be the AES, ARSC, SAA  or some other entity,
>> perhaps one hosted and
>>> overseen by the preservation office of the LOC?  The more I think about
>> it, the more I feel the
>>> mission of the host should be preservation, one that has a visceral
>> understanding of audio issues.
>>>
>>> And is someone saving these emails?  Lots of good ideas and comments in
>> them can be used to frame
>>> up a shoot-downable document to get things rolling.
>>>
>>> And someone has to be the structural boss, one we all acknowledge as 
>>> such.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Steve Smolian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Andes, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:54 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
>> next??
>>>
>>>
>>> Hold on a second Steve....before we all start handing over blank checks
>>> to Jim Lindner.
>>>
>>> To quote myself:
>>> The next step is then agreeing on naming conventions, metadata
>>> collection standards, and cross reference sources.
>>>
>>> Lobbying for money to get some machines, is great (and will get it's
>>> due, in time) but if you don't fully understand what to do with the
>>> output of your process (or what to call those thousands of files you
>>> created), I think you may find yourself in a bit of a bind. You also run
>>> the risk of having your funding pulled once your source realizes you
>>> haven't thought this ALL THE WAY through. I've "heard" this to be the
>>> reasoning behind the halt on a few digital initiatives internally at
>>> EMI, before my time.
>>>
>>> The end goal here has to be identified before deciding on the path.
>>>
>>> Are we looking to:
>>> -simply migrate from Analog to Digital (and why?)
>>> -increase accessibility (how far and to who?)
>>> -increase our knowledge about what these recording actually contain (by
>>> how much?)
>>> -hand these digital files off to a repository (either now of in the
>>> future?)
>>> -other reasons????
>>>
>>> There's a lot of great buzz words regarding assets nowadays, but without
>>> knowing your destination, you're almost sure to get lost.
>>>
>>> There are many reasons everyone is not going digital with their archives
>>> just yet. Jim apparently solved at least some of the Hardware issues (I
>>> still haven't seen the system) but we need to put our heads together on
>>> figuring the rest of the pieces of the plan out. THEN we can approach
>>> the money sources, with a plan in hand. Otherwise, it just doesn't make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> Ideas:
>>>
>>> On the grandest scheme, could localized libraries/archives/repositories
>>> all be feeding into some uber-data storage site run by the LOC, or some
>>> other institution? Shifting the IT end to a centralized location.
>>>
>>> Could all the small transfer houses buy some machines from Jim, and
>>> adhere to a set of standard practice to implement this mega digital
>>> initiative? Instead of everyone running in there own direction.
>>>
>>> Could the costs be spread between different levels of the government,
>>> and or institutions? Because there's probably more then one place to get
>>> the money, and we'd need to identify them all for a project of scale to
>>> be seen all the way through.
>>>
>>> Don Andes
>>> Director of Archives
>>> EMI Music
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:24 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
>>> next??
>>>
>>> Good news, Jim.
>>>
>>> Funding sources are the next (or simultaneous) step.  That means a
>>> budget.
>>> That means a stepwise approach has to be assembled.
>>> Is this a "save our sound" big grant project?
>>>
>>> It this to be done in a central location(s) or at each individual site?
>>>
>>> Work would be required to go through each clump (archive, accumulation,
>>> etc.) to get a count, figure out what problems exist, decide what other
>>> work will be required (creation of ID, cataloging, metadata, etc.) to
>>> eventually feed into a general data base and allow the holder to use his
>>> own search-and-find system meanwhile.  This should be done by roaming
>>> professionals, not in-house guys who have been to a workshop.  Perhaps a
>>> team of one of us and one of them would also allow training of the next
>>> generation of those comfortable with older stuff.
>>>
>>> The "important to whom" question comes up.  There are churches and
>>> historical societies with cabinets full of cassettes, etc., with
>>> interviews and recordings of local historical events.  I've worked on
>>> many, and, at least to me, they are often far more interesting and
>>> informative than a routine broadcast of the Franck D minor Symphony.
>>>
>>> The whole target media issue needs further exploration.  Should there be
>>> a central location with bouncing computers and backups to the backup
>>> generators?  I work immediately next door to a pathology company that
>>> tests its two generators every Thursday afternoon.  That's how I know
>>> it's Thursday.
>>>
>>> We must be prepared with lots of info before sitting down at the table
>>> with the grantors.
>>>
>>> Steve Smolian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jim Lindner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
>>> next??
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let me provide some factual information here that may be helpful.
>>> Yes,
>>>> and automated system to redo film splices has been made and does
>>> exist in
>>>> prototype form. That effort was undertaken as part of the  PrestoSpace
>>>
>>>> project. It was designed for 16mm film and was designed  to be
>>> tolerant
>>>> enough to consider film that had a very substantial  amount of
>>> shrinkage.
>>>> The system was also designed to repair damaged  sprocket holes as well
>>>
>>>> because the splicing tape used was sprocketed  - this is my
>>> recollection.
>>>> I did not see the machine myself but I did  see several presentations
>>>> where it was shown. There were some issues.  I can find out more
>>> detail if
>>>> there is interest on the list.
>>>>
>>>> Our company has been working for some time on a new series of tape
>>>> cleaners. These machines were under development for over 4 years.
>>> They
>>>> are dramatically different then any other cleaner made for tape  in
>>> many
>>>> ways - one of which is that they were designed specifically  for
>>> issues
>>>> that relate to old tape. They use the familiar tissue wipe  system
>>>> although I will rather proudly say- that we have made some  pretty
>>> good
>>>> improvements on the basic concept which includes sensors  that "look
>>> at"
>>>> the tissue to tell when it is clean and change speed  of transport as
>>> well
>>>> as torque depending on the results of those  sensors and others -
>>>> including continuous monitoring of tape tension  and motor current.
>>> This
>>>> is not a sales plug - I just want you to know  that this work as been
>>>> done. The cleaners are in production and  available for purchase.
>>> There
>>>> are different models that vary by shell  size - and have to. So there
>>> is
>>>> one for the VHS FAMILY (which  includes SVHS... .all the flavors)
>>>> Betacam - includes betamax,  digibeta... all the flavors, and
>>> Umatic....
>>>> same story. They  accommodate large and small cassettes in their
>>>> respective families.  These are state of the art devices with computer
>>>
>>>> interfaces and we  have written software to interface to them. They
>>> are
>>>> being sold with  our without software - so if you wanted to "roll your
>>>
>>>> own" software  to control your cleaning machine just the way you want
>>> to -
>>>> we will  give you the protocol and go to town. These are professional
>>>> machines  and we obviously are not making a huge amount of them. So
>>> they
>>>> are  not inexpensive - but they work and do a much better job then any
>>>
>>>> other machine ever made to clean tapes.
>>>>
>>>> We are working on a machine for reel to reel tapes. We are using the
>>>> successful design for the cassette devices and are using as many of
>>> the
>>>> same design elements in these units as we can. We have also  solicited
>>>
>>>> outside design input from some people - a few are on this  list. We
>>> are
>>>> not done - but the cleaner will use the tissue cleaning  system as
>>> well as
>>>> our sensing system and will accomodate reels from  2" to 1/4".
>>>>
>>>> We have not done any work on an automated splicing system, but I
>>> believe
>>>> that the work done on film system could likely be transported  to a
>>> reel
>>>> to reel device for audio tape.
>>>>
>>>> But - and here it would be very important to hear from you - the
>>>> "industry".
>>>>
>>>> These devices are expensive. They are expensive to develop and
>>> expensive
>>>> to manufacture. Since we are not making thousands of them -  it is
>>> likely
>>>> that they will continue to be expensive to produce - and  there has to
>>> be
>>>> a "market" for the devices - because there isnt much  point in making
>>> them
>>>> unless there is a real market with people with  real money who are
>>> willing
>>>> to pay for them to do mass digitization  work. The machines are cost
>>>> effective in an environment where many  tapes need to be processed and
>>>
>>>> time and quality are important factors  - this means that this is not
>>>> hobbyist gear.
>>>>
>>>> For years people in this field complained that there was no vendor
>>> who
>>>> made the kind of equipment that was needed. Now there is - but  what
>>> we
>>>> need to know - is that now that we have done all of this work  and
>>> spent
>>>> all of the money - now that the possibility really exists  to do the
>>>> work - how many people are going to step up to the  challenge and
>>> start
>>>> doing it. We  are having very good success in the  Broadcast and
>>> Library
>>>> sectors - what about the other sectors? In  particular - the archive
>>>> sector - which was the initial market we  targeted in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> So - if we all agree that Mass Digitization is important - what I
>>> want to
>>>> know is - how many of you are willing to step up to the  challenge and
>>>
>>>> start really working on it? The gear now exists. We are  eager to hear
>>>
>>>> about people willing to take out their checkbooks and  start to work
>>> out
>>>> THEIR strategies to make this all work. We offer  the building blocks
>>> - no
>>>> one has ever done that. No one ever made a  TBC that was designed
>>>> specifically for Archival tapes - now it exists  - Broadcasters are
>>>> buying, Libraries are buying, what about you - the  restoration
>>>> specialists???? I am eager to hear what you have to say.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jim Lindner
>>>>
>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>   Media Matters LLC.
>>>>   SAMMA Systems LLC.
>>>>   450 West 31st Street 4th Floor
>>>>   New York, N.Y. 10001
>>>>
>>>> eFax (646) 349-4475
>>>> Mobile: (917) 945-2662
>>>> Office: (212) 268-5528
>>>>
>>>> www.media-matters.net
>>>> Media Matters LLC. is a technical consultancy specializing in
>>> archival
>>>> audio and video material. We provide advice and analysis, to  media
>>>> archives that apply the beneficial advances in technology to
>>> collection
>>>> management.
>>>>
>>>> www.sammasystems.com
>>>> SAMMA Systems provides tools and products that implement and optimize
>>> the
>>>> advances in modern technology with established media preservation  and
>>>
>>>> access practices.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 17, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Robert Hodge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not even film can be spliced automatically due to the fact that it
>>>>> shrinks
>>>>> and will not fit on a splicer fixture designed to accept non shrunken
>>>>> film.
>>>>> As the shrinkage percentage can vary widely in both longitudinal and
>>>>> horizontal planes, I suspect that any attempt to automate it will be
>>>>> doomed to failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it takes a skilled preson to do it correctly !  Without Question
>>>>> !!
>>>>>
>>>>> R. Hodge
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Hodge,
>>>>> Senior Engineer
>>>>> Belfer Audio Archive
>>>>> Syracuse University
>>>>> 222 Waverly Ave .
>>>>> Syracuse N.Y. 13244-2010
>>>>>
>>>>> 315-443- 7971
>>>>> FAX-315-443-4866
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] 5/17/2007 3:53 PM >>>
>>>>> Boy, if it were my company jewels (assets), I sure wouldn't trust a
>>>>> robot to fix splices. That's a
>>>>> real skill that takes a skilled person. Remember that film is
>>>>> sproketed, so perhaps
>>>>> splice-fix-automation is easier to design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, why do you say "ALL" polyester tape needs baking? Where do you
>>>>> get that? Only certain types of
>>>>> know sticky-shed tapes from certain eras need baking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of taking the typical engineer road and trying to invent some
>>>>> overblown gadget, companies
>>>>> and institutions should realize the need to spend what it takes to
>>> get
>>>>> skilled labor to do the job
>>>>> right. Skilled labor can do a better job working with relatively
>>> simple
>>>>> and non-costly setups. The
>>>>> biggest threat to archiving is mass-inefficiency and duplicated labor
>>>>> because of non-communication
>>>>> and fiefdom/stovepipe mentalities. Again, better to invest in the
>>>>> skilled personnel to run these
>>>>> organizations correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:29 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we're going to discuss this a possible solution, we need to look
>>>>> at the inevitable  problems
>>>>>> that will arise and figure out ways to deal with them beforehand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Splices have to be checked and remade, tape baked, etc., etc., etc.
>>>>> That's real reel time.  If
>>>>>> that is not done, there will be a lot of crashing and (non disc)
>>>>> burning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have the film people come up with an automatic splicer (for pre
>>>>> digital film?)  If so, perhaps
>>>>>> that technology could be applied to tape, at least, acetate based.
>>>>> ALL polyester would have to be
>>>>>> baked and quickly also run through the auto-resplicer, should one
>>>>> exist, befor the tape becomes
>>>>>> sticky again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There will surely be a need for pressure pad machines, with tape
>>>>> candidates requiring their use
>>>>>> having been selected by a human, since flatening curled tape
>>>>> naturally is time consuming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We may have to live with out-of-phase stereo in first level storage
>>>>> and correct it at playback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So let's look at this not as a problem but as a design issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sky will fall only if we let it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Smolian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Andes, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:59 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we're mostly in agreement, I'll try keep my responses short.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See below...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:21 AM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Andes, Donald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***It's most likely that our Archeologist friends are better than we
>>>>> at
>>>>>> developing cost effective plans to achieve their goal, which may be
>>>>>> easier when justifying project costs against the collection of
>>>>>> "priceless" artifacts. It is also very possible that we're comparing
>>>>>> apples to oranges, as they most likely have very different funding
>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Over the years I have reviewed many grant applications for audio
>>>>>> preservation projects. The content and methodology have ranged from
>>>>> well
>>>>>> considered to the absurd. The question really that comes to my mind
>>>>> is
>>>>>> the notion of cost effective. Grant funding is, by design, not
>>>>>> predicated on notions of "cost effective." Also, very few proposals
>>>>> I
>>>>>> have read, address questions of efficiency. It is my thinking that
>>>>> cost
>>>>>> effective means that it can pay for itself. I believe that the
>>>>>> copyrights in the US, and the very functionalism of libraries (free
>>>>> to
>>>>>> the public) prevent libraries and archives from realizing
>>>>> substantive
>>>>>> financial return for their efforts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I guess I don't see that we are comparing apple and oranges,
>>> unless
>>>>> we
>>>>>> choose to make such a differentiation. It seems to me that
>>> uncovering
>>>>> a
>>>>>> fragment of a clay pot, is not unlike reclaiming a bit of audio.
>>>>> Once
>>>>>> the "artifact" has been recovered, there is then the question of
>>>>>> cataloging it and its preservation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The apples to oranges retort come from the fact that nothing you'll
>>>>>> uncover by digging in the ground comes with copyright, performance,
>>>>> and
>>>>>> estate issues. Also, most of what Archeoloigists are looking for
>>>>> have
>>>>>> wider appeal, since it connect dots in the greater fabric of our
>>>>>> existence. Uncovering a audio masterpiece may help us understand a
>>>>>> composers intent, or help resolve a dispute over chord progressions
>>>>> or
>>>>>> unresolved notes, but it's still a very niche area. Again scope
>>>>> comes
>>>>>> into play here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***2) The under appreciation/underpaying of Library and Archiving
>>>>> staff:
>>>>>> The world today (more than ever) comes down to profitability. Since
>>>>>> libraries don't make profits, it falls in line that there not going
>>>>> to
>>>>>> be handling out high paying jobs working for a Library. High paying
>>>>> jobs
>>>>>> can easily be had in the Finance, Legal, and Medical worlds. This
>>>>> has
>>>>>> been true for years, but for librarians the cold hard facts haven't
>>>>>> sunken in. Do I believe they should be paid more, of course I do.
>>> But
>>>>> do
>>>>>> I think they ever will, not in my lifetime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I agree. I would also suggest that the available salaries for
>>>>>> libraries will continue to decline due to the decline in use
>>>>> statistics.
>>>>>> I believe it will be increasingly difficult for those charged with
>>>>>> making budget decisions to justify library budgets. However, one
>>>>> needs
>>>>>> to keep in mind that libraries and archives exist as "public
>>>>> utilities"
>>>>>> of a sort. They are funded as we fund our fire departments. They are
>>>>>> seen as serving a common good. Yet, indeed, as the funding of public
>>>>>> utilities is being more subject to funding predicated on use, (toll
>>>>>> roads being but one example) libraries are very likely to experience
>>>>>> even more substantive reductions in public funding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **My thinking is that libraries seem to be trying to compete in
>>>>> areas
>>>>>> where they have already lost. Libraries are trying to counter the
>>>>>> defection to google and yahoo, by becoming movie theaters and snack
>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **On the other hand, I believe that libraries need to refocus their
>>>>>> remaining resources more to the preservation of our intellectual
>>>>>> history...being museums of a different sort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to play the pessimist, but I find Libararies will be following
>>>>>> records stores to their demise, and I question what can be done, so
>>>>> late
>>>>>> in the game to change the inevitable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, Police and Fire services can be seen as government protection
>>>>>> against liabilities. Libraries do not offer this function to the
>>>>>> government with it serves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***The fact is that we have massive amounts of history from the
>>>>> 1900's
>>>>>> in every field. Are we missing important stuff, sure we are. But the
>>>>>> unfortunate fact is that not enough people care enough about what's
>>>>>> missing. And more so, not enough profitability can be had from
>>>>>> collecting what was lost, to make it a worthwhile endeavor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Indeed, that is my question, what can we realistically hope to
>>>>>> preserve. Also tied into that question is the criteria used to
>>>>> decide
>>>>>> what we should preserve. Who has those skills? What sort of training
>>>>> is
>>>>>> needed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we COULD preserve it all, however, we (the archival
>>>>> community)
>>>>>> need to start putting more time into large scale cohesive planning
>>>>> and
>>>>>> lobbying for funding to support it, instead of running around crying
>>>>>> that the sky is falling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just take a look at what Google books is doing. I'm not in 100%
>>>>>> agreement with the plan or it's direction, but think of the scale.
>>>>> Think
>>>>>> of what they set out to accomplish. Strange, how no one IN the
>>>>> community
>>>>>> thinks on this level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***Think of it: That lost treasure of sound, that we thought the
>>>>> world
>>>>>> would never hear again. Suddenly found, in pristine condition....How
>>>>>> many downloads, CD's excetera could you possibly sell? Unless it the
>>>>>> Beatles or Elvis it's most likely a lot LESS than you would think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Having my own record company and having issued historic
>>>>> performances,
>>>>>> I have some practical experience. I can find no rationale for what
>>>>> sells
>>>>>> and what does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I am often reminded of the interest in the music of Mahler. While
>>>>>> there were a few of the faithful around when he died...consider the
>>>>>> notion that since he was not given much credit as a composer when he
>>>>>> died, nobody preserved his manuscripts. We now have a market for
>>>>> Mahler.
>>>>>> It is difficult to second guess what product might find that
>>>>> "Tipping
>>>>>> point" and what might not. Thankfully, Mahler's music has been
>>>>>> preserved. How do you know there is a market for a product unless
>>>>> you
>>>>>> have the product  and make it available?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well that's what the business is all about. We do market research,
>>>>> sign
>>>>>> artists, and take chances. We don't sign everyone we could, and we
>>>>> don't
>>>>>> always sign artists that are profitable. Regardelss, it's highly
>>>>>> unlikely that any "found" audio will reap large sums of money;
>>>>>> especially in this market already inundated with catalog releases
>>>>> and
>>>>>> slipping CD sales.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***3) Metadata concerns:
>>>>>> Here's the white elephant in the room. Everyone wants to
>>>>>> preserve/transfer/digitize, but guess what??? If you don't have a
>>>>>> complete and correct metadata standard in place, you'll probably do
>>>>> more
>>>>>> harm then good. Once things are transferred, the value of storing
>>>>> the
>>>>>> original drops (to the non archivist) and people assume that they'll
>>>>>> never need to go back to it. That is until, we try to understand
>>>>> what
>>>>>> the heck the file is, since your metadata seems spotty, and possibly
>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Again, I agree completely. While great work is being done in Music
>>>>>> Information Retrieval,  as for the metadata, libraries are having a
>>>>>> rough time these days. I consider the aborted attempts to revise the
>>>>>> cataloging rules. I believe it is time for a complete overhaul of
>>>>>> cataloging (metadata preparation, description, and cataloging
>>>>>> methodology).  It is my hope that some enterprising company will
>>> come
>>>>> up
>>>>>> with some highly efficient, less labor intensive, system for the
>>>>>> creation of metadata, one that is so inexpensive that libraries will
>>>>> be
>>>>>> forced into making changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I believe it is irrational to expect libraries to do it on their
>>>>> own.
>>>>>> To abandon MARC voluntarily seems not only unlikely, but
>>>>>> irrational...there is too much money invested in the old
>>>>> methodology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Google books, I'm sure those outside the industry will figure
>>>>> this
>>>>>> all out for us, whether the solution is fool proof or not.
>>>>> Regardless,
>>>>>> it will just verify that our industry is lost and behind the times,
>>>>> and
>>>>>> our dismal salaries are in line with what they should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ****4) Formatting/Migration issues:
>>>>>> Yikes. This was hiding being the white elephant called metadata. And
>>>>>> again, unless you figure this out UP FRONT, why bother digitizing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I agree in part. While there are many valid points to be made to
>>>>>> reformat recordings on stable media, I am a firm believer in
>>>>> addressing
>>>>>> the media which is chemically unstable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously migrating to avoid permanemt loss is manditory, but
>>>>> digitizing
>>>>>> analog reels in stable condition without connecting all the dots
>>>>> seems
>>>>>> pointless to me, which is why I advocate against it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ****5) And finally to address your last statement:
>>>>>> I think the archiving world has it's blinders on, and needs to pull
>>>>>> back, rationalize a bit, and find it's place in the modern world of
>>>>>> business, technology, culture, and government. It's not effort or
>>>>> caring
>>>>>> that this industry lacks; it's scope, direction and rational.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Again, I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I believe that the pressures from the private sector are forcing
>>>>>> libraries and archives to reconsider their place in society. I would
>>>>>> wager that many of us have plenty of good ideas as to how to
>>>>>> significantly increase library productivity and  perhaps even
>>>>> provide
>>>>>> some cost recovery...and I am not taking about coffee bars...I
>>> wonder
>>>>> if
>>>>>> there is anything that can be done from within the profession, or if
>>>>> we
>>>>>> just need to sit back and wait for the changes to be forced from the
>>>>>> private sector. I guess I just don't see libraries and archives
>>>>> taking
>>>>>> the initiative to change...and sadly, I believe a great deal of our
>>>>>> history stands to be lost in the process of waiting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Sadly, I see libraries ignoring (I use the word ignore since such
>>>>> a
>>>>>> small percentage of ARL member's budgets is devoted to preservation)
>>>>>> what I see to be their greatest resource, their unique holdings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yet, for me, the question remains, is there some way to
>>>>> significantly
>>>>>> realign priorities within libraries? It seems to me that the changes
>>>>>> need to come from outside the preservation profession. The question
>>>>> is,
>>>>>> what is the best marketing strategy and how do we go about mounting
>>>>> our
>>>>>> advertizing campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marketing and PR are taken to be in opposition to public use and
>>>>>> non-profit, but the two can actually work had and hand quite nicely.
>>>>> The
>>>>>> problem goes back to re-identifying what libraries and archives are,
>>>>>> what they could be, and what they should be. When I was a kid,
>>>>> libraries
>>>>>> didn't have any direct competition beyond the local bookstore. But
>>>>> now
>>>>>> with Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, Blockbuster and Virgin Megastores
>>>>>> competing in BOTH the brick and motar AND online space it's no
>>>>> wonder
>>>>>> the public isn't flocking to libraries. I myself haven't found the
>>>>> need
>>>>>> to go in years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I used to wonder if part of the problem had to do with the way
>>>>> society
>>>>>> views the role of music. Our copyrights seem to deal with it as a
>>>>>> consumable. Yet I then consider how we have such things as a "Museum
>>>>> of
>>>>>> Broadcasting." We seem to place some value on consumables. But do we
>>>>>> place more value on "I Love Lucy" than we do on Perry Como...or
>>>>>> "Omnibus" versus some of the more esoteric bits of our musical
>>>>> heritage.
>>>>>> It would seem the answer is yes. Then the question comes to my mind,
>>>>>> will Lucy be as valued 100 years from now as say an Omnibus program
>>>>>> featuring Frank Lloyd Wright. I wonder...then, should the library
>>>>> and
>>>>>> archive world be more concerned with what is not economically viable
>>>>> and
>>>>>> leave that which has a potential for "cost recovery," to the private
>>>>>> sector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We all have to remember that the populous doesn't even scratch the
>>>>>> surface beyond commercially availible music and film releases. I
>>>>> enjoy
>>>>>> genres of music that have never had commercial success in this
>>>>> country,
>>>>>> and most likely never will. I have literally thousands of records
>>>>> that
>>>>>> could vanish without anyone understanding their ramifications. But I
>>>>>> understand, I'm in a niche, of a niche, of a niche. These recordings
>>>>>> connect the dots for a few very low key genres but do not register
>>>>> on
>>>>>> the radar of the public scope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question: If we could look back in great detail on the times of any
>>>>>> ancient civilization, what would be more relivant: the tastes, and
>>>>>> likings of the masses (aka the Mozarts, Michalangelos, and
>>>>>> Shakespeares), or the concerns and pickings of the trivial ubergeeks
>>>>>> like ourselves (obsure no name, short lived, fringe artists)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Should an organization like EMI, donate (the objects and the
>>>>> rights)
>>>>>> whatever holdings it sees as having no revenue potential to the
>>>>>> non-profit, public sector?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EMI UK, does have a non-profit historic trust, and donates a wide
>>>>>> variety of older reordings and technologies to it. I am currently
>>>>> trying
>>>>>> to establish something here in the US along those lines, but cannot
>>>>>> discuss it any more than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Karl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Music from EMI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be
>>>>> legally privileged. If you have
>>>>>> received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return
>>>>> email and then delete it from
>>>>>> your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or
>>>>> alteration of this email is strictly
>>>>>> forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795
>>>>> 7000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Registered in England No 229231.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>>> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date:
>>>>> 5/16/2007 6:05 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
>>>> 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007 6:05 PM
>>>>
>>>
>>> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Music from EMI
>>>
>>> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be legally
>> privileged. If you have
>>> received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return 
>>> email
>> and then delete it from
>>> your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or 
>>> alteration of
>> this email is strictly
>>> forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.
>>>
>>> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
>>>
>>> Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
>>>
>>> Registered in England No 229231.
>>>
>>>
>>> - --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> --No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007
>> 6:05 PM
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 
> 269.7.3/809 - Release Date: 5/17/2007 5:18 PM
> 
>