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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2008

ARSCLIST August 2008

Subject:

Re: The Hope of Audacity...

From:

Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:00:48 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

On Monday, August 18, 2008 6:38 PM, George Blood wrote:

> Namely, we're feeding them data (output of the A to D converter)
> and that data is being changed between the input and being
> written out into a file.

How did you test and measure those changes?


> Interoperability is a non-trivial issue.

Interoperability is not desirable from the software vendor's
perspective (ie. captive user), and they will invest minimally
in this. Only when people stop purchasing software that is not
interoperable will the vendors then start to deliver what the
market demands.

The reality - unfortunately - is that the archival audio market
is barely a blip on the radar for most of these software
vendors. So rather than selecting software that caters to
multi-track production of new music, it is worth giving higher
consideration to software that caters to restoration and
archival work. As a user, your voice is more likely to be
heard.

Keep in mind that software that caters to smaller market niches
also has to cost more because the software development costs
need to be amortized across far fewer users.

So if cost is an issue, and you choose to go with tools
targetted at the mass market to save money, you can't honestly
expect archival grade software.


> Third, what does it tell us in the trade that, for all our
> efforts to create higher resolution files, there's been
> overwhelming satisfaction with the lesser results.

What are you calling "the trade"?

In the archival world, I don't see any such slipping
towards lesser results. Certainly not intentional
slipping. Maybe some archives are still coming up the
education curve, or are strapped for resources - but
that should not be confused with "overwhelming
satisfaction".

In the general music industry, absolutely yes - client
discrimination is on the decline as convenience and
portability take priority over audio quality. I'm
wondering if it's not so much that there's been
overwhelming satisfaction with lesser audio quality
as there has been overwhelming satisfaction with
convenience and portability.


> It reminds us that so many of our source materials
> are of such low (or lower) quality that there isn't
> more information to be captured at the higher resolutions.

Perhaps there is not more audio content to be captured
at higher resolutions, but in some cases - such as with
grooved media - the higher frequency impulse information
can be valuable for improved noise reduction later.

On the other hand, oral histories on field-recorded
cassettes are generally just fine at 24-bit 48 kHz
sampling rates.

One can also argue that by using a single standard within
an archive like 24/96, that this will reduce the amount
of processing and migration errors and will serve the
archive better in the long-term.


> Where you have to break the files into multiple sub-file
> (due to the 2GB file size limit of WAV), you create a
> chance to lose one of the pieces. Is this really better
> preservation than having one file (even 44/16) of the
> whole thing?

I think the 2 GB limit is a temporary situation. Unlimited
file lengths are well defined already for the ubiquitous
WAVE (and archival BWF) formats, and well supported by
some software packages (those focused on the archival
market). I believe it's just a matter of time until this
will become a standard. Perhaps wishful thinking, but I
think not - the broadcast industry will make this happen.

The digital domain is rapidly evolving, whether it is
sample rates, storage, or file formats...

We just need to accept that once you go digital, you need
to also commit to evolution and migration, and to the
effort and costs associated with digital preservation.

Digital is here to stay. Modern recordings are "born
digital" and will also need to be preserved. Digital
is inescapable, as is the rapid change around it. It's
actually kind of amazing that the audio CD has lasted
nearly 30 years as a digital format.


> we shouldn't be pointing fingers at the poor blokes
> trying eek out a living selling $250 (or free) software.
> You get what you pay for. If you paid for that, you got
> it. Of your own free will.

...to the extent that your free will is not constrained
by your resources.

But, yes, you generally get what you pay for (the crux
of this entire thread of postings), and that's not going
to change any time soon in the archival world.


Eric Jacobs

The Audio Archive, Inc.
Tel: 408.221.2128
Fax: 408.549.9867
mailto:[log in to unmask]

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 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