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 2007

ARSCLIST May 2007

Subject:

Re: Mass Digitization/ 78's

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 17 May 2007 21:23:47 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (208 lines)

It's non-viable, even if we used 20" discs.

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andes, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization/ 78's


As some of you may have already guessed, I'm open to crazy ideas, so I'll 
pursue the logic of creating 78's as an archival medium, since they have 
been hanging around in vaults for a good long time.

But I have the following questions in regards to 78's:

What is the maximum uninterrupted record time?
What is the maximum fidelity expectation?
Could the format possibly handle multi-channel recordings?
If there any way to embed a video track (if you will) to address audio that 
is required to sync with a video source?
Could you possible embed a data track to handle metadata since Physical 
labels have limited space, can fall off, or become obscured?
In today's world of chemical regulations, is it still legal to make a 78 
record, or does include some gaseous by-product, or radioactive waste?

Without viable real world answers to ALL the questions above, I believe I 
for one would take the idea of using 78's as non-viable.

Any takers?

Don Andes
Director of Archives
EMI Music

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George Brock-Nannestad
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Hello,

Karl Miller, Don Andes, and others have discussed this, not the least in 
view of the work of archeologists.

Unless somehow, miraculously, every existing sound recording gets digitized 
and maintained forever by migration, there will be a loss over time.

Alternatively, everything may be transferred to analog metal masters and 
stored with few environmental requirements, along with information of how to 
extract the sound. Shellac-based slate-dust records (78s to you) may serve a 
similar purpose, as repeatedly and correctly pointed out by Steven Barr.

So, unless one or both are done we shall have a loss in the absolute sense, 
but not necessarily perceived as such - if an item will never be demanded, 
nobody will ever know that it is missing.

Before we get bogged down by the enormity of the task, let us look at what a 
sound recording can bring us at some indefinite time in the future. I am 
bringing very basic considerations, but they are useful for getting a grip 
on the problem.

But before planning on a strategy for maintaining sound recordings we must 
have an idea of what we expect to get "in the other end", that is at the 
time we access the stored sound recording.


If we have, say, 3 minutes of sound, what may that represent?

1) it may be a "blind" recording, just 3 minutes of sound surrounding the 
microphone (soundscape)

1a) it may like 1) but with a directional microphone

2) it may be a recording of a complete utterance lasting 2 minutes, with 
pure soundscape on either side

3) it may be a recording of a longer utterance, i.e. an excerpt of 3 minutes

4) it may be an edited-down version of a longer utterance to take up 
precisely 3 minutes

5) it may be a construct: recorded faster for slow reproduction in order to 
obtain Mickey Mouse (TradeMark) voices

6) more generally: an edited sound that never existed in real life


When we reproduce our recording, we may have different purposes in mind:


a) to get an airborne sound that is identical to that present when it was 
recorded

b) to get an airborne sound that is identical to that which would have been 
available to contemporary reproducers of the recording

c) to get an airborne sound that is identical to that which reproduction on 
any later equipment may provide

d) to get an airborne sound that is identical to that which transmission via 
any kind of network, such as broadcast (medium wave, FM, telephone wire, 
etc., early A/D, D/A) would sound like

e) to get a signal that is useful for scientific analysis

Seeing a) - d) we realize that 4) - 6) above may actually be re-recordings 
themselves.

Recording type 6) actually provides the least of general interest, because 
it is an edited recording made out of little pieces. It can only tell us 
precisely how someone wanted it to sound, but not how something like that 
sounds in actual performance. This means that any scientific analysis based 
on the time function will be faulty, because the time axis has been cut and 
pasted. Hence, we can study taste or ambition as it was at the time of the 
original edit - is that enough to maintain its availability?

In a similar line of thinking, we may go through any combination of 
recording and reproduction and consider if we think that we want to take 
responsibility for the long-term availability of such combinations.

I have on other occasions proposed a coarse division of the field 
"preserivng sound", and I have suggested the purposes as "nostalgia", "audio 
history", and "scientific analysis". There is absolutely no value judgment 
involved in these labels, and they may not be all that are needed. A 
reasonably complete discussion may be found in a paper I gave at the 103rd 
AES Convention in New York 1997 (I gave three papers during that 
convention), with a long but precise title: "Applying the Concept of 
Operational Conservation Theory to Problems of Audio Restoration and 
Archiving Practice", Preprint No. 4612. In it I attempted to undo some of 
the damage that had been done to the field by simplistic models presented in 
the early 1990s that appealed immensely to engineers.

I know that the cost of obtaining this preprint from the AES will put 
somebody off, but the general philosophy of Operational Conservation Theory 
may be found for free as a pdf-file at

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/brock-nannestad/operational-
conservation-theory.pdf

ALL ON ONE LINE !!!

My personal view is that if there is a community that swears by analog 
recording and reproduction, they should see to it that there is a solid 
manufacturing support for it, i.e. both carriers, components and equipment.

We have a similar situation in the photographic field: the manufacturing 
support for film-based emulsions is withdrawing at an alarming rate.
Originally, perforated film for 24x36 mm was basically movie negative film, 
but the range available now, due to the demise of B/W moviemaking brings 
tears to your eyes. It is the large-scale coating of a strip that requires 
manufacturing facilities. Within the foreseeable future you will have wet 
collodion plates once more, something that can be made up by anybody by 
extremely well-documented, albeit old, processes. Similarly, the only 
analogue recording medium that can be prepared in a cottage industry is the 
lacquer disc. Wire recordings on nickel would be quite feasible, and 
retracing the old principles with modern components is certainly doable. I 
shall go the "Whole Earth Catalogue" to find my components.

So, instead of hearing the contiuned whimpering about the demise of analog, 
I expect strong voices representing parties willing to pay for continued 
analog access to analog recordings - and if needed - continued acces to 
recording by analog means. Those who have digitized too early (and it is 
always too early) are suffering now and in the near future. Those who have 
saved decayed audio by going digital have bought a little time.

Looking forward to further insightful contributions on these matters,

best wishes,


George

- --------------------------------------------------------------------




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

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