LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  June 2009

ARSCLIST June 2009

Subject:

Re: Best practice: mixed acetate and polyester reels with sticky shed

From:

Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:09:16 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (144 lines)

I don't see any problem in storing the master in the two separate reels.
 What you have is the form that original motion picture edit masters are
routinely created in: "A-B Rolls."  This is how motion pictures have
always been created.  The first scene is on the A roll, and then the
printer does the designated transition to the next section from the B
roll, such as a dissolve, fade, cut, wipe, iris, etc., then back to the
next scene on the A roll, etc.  This is also routinely done in audio
masters, especially in the pre-multrack days, where a segment to be
over-dubbed during mastering is on a separate reel.  The train bells in
the Original Cast of The Music Man is an example (they are timed
differently on different masters of this record), and Stan Freberg's
imitation of Kay Kyser's introductions for the Capital LP Kay Kyser's
Greatest Hits.  Of course you run the risk of losing one of the reels,
such as Capitol either losing or forgetting the Freberg announcements
when they did the CD of the album!!!  But in your case, the metadata
notation of "A-B roll" should inform future archivists of the storage
format.

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]




From: George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, June 11, 2009 11:55 am
To: [log in to unmask]

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Eric Jacobs wrote:

> I have Scotch 201 (acetate base) and Scotch 206 (polyester base,
> back coated) in two dozen alternating segments. The Scotch 206 
> is very sticky.
> 
> I was able to separate the 201 and 206 so that the 206 could be 
> baked apart from the 201 (not to be baked). The STUDER A820 has 
> only rolling contact when spooling, and I set the tensions very 
> low and the library winding speed at 3 meters/sec. This allowed 
> spooling of the sticky segments, which had to be done prior to
> baking in order to separate the polyester from the acetate.

----- lovely to hear about good equipment for the purpose

> 
> So here are my thoughts and questions:
> 
> 1. For future playback, would it be better to splice all the 
> polyester together, each segment separated by leader, and the 
> leaders annotated as to the order of the segments? Ditto 
> for the acetate. Pros: Future baking becomes vastly simpler. 
> Downside: the non-sequential segment order needs to be 
> documented in the metadata, in the filenames of the preservation 
> masters, and possibly annotated on the tape itself (on the 
> segment separation leaders).

----- I would definitely recommend this option. The only way that you
can get 
a preservation master is by performing the separation that you described

above, so you have the option between no preservation master and a re-
assembled one. The original tape only serves to authenticate, and it is
now 
vastly more accessible. Obviously this generates metadata. The
annotation on 
the tape itself (the leaders) will be an interesting exercise, because
you 
need arrows to point to which part you mean. You would not want to
reverse a 
piece of tape in the process.

> 
> 2. Or would it be better to re-assemble the reel in its 
> original segment order (alternating polyester/acetate)?
> Pros: we preserve the original order of the tape. Cons:
> someone in the future may have to repeat the exercise of 
> separating the segments yet again for baking?

----- the only problem lies in the authentication: the tape as found 
undoubtedly uses the pieces in the order originally planned, if the
splices 
hold up. However, irrespective of whether you use (1) or (2) the pieces
have 
been separated in the process, and we only have your assurance that the 
pieces are now in the same order according to (2). If we trust this 
reassembly we could just as well trust that you have brought the two
types of 
tape in the order that you yourself describe in the metadata relating to
(1). 
But there is no doubt that some authenticity, some indubitable
traceablility, 
has been lost in the process. But this way, the surviving tape obtains
more 
than mere symbolic value: we get access to the content.

> 
> 3. I prefer to insert leader between the segments when there is
> azimuth variation between the segments, as it allows for 
> easier identification of each segment and cueing each 
> segment for individual azimuth adjustment (thank goodness
> for calibrated azimuth adjusters). Cons: you double the
> amount of splices in the tape pack.

----- I really enjoyed reading this: this means that you would do it,
even if 
the two types of tape did not need different baking and separation per
se. 
Splices at an angle serve as a primitive sort of very quick cross-fade -
how 
do you deal with this? And the preservation copy you provide would be a-
historical as reproduction goes, because now we have a maximum of high 
frequencies that we did not have ever before. But that is no different
from 
extracting sound that was not reproducible on early mechanical
reproducers 
from early mechanical recordings.

> 
> To date, I generally perform (2) above - especially if the polyester
> segments do not require baking. I often get Scotch 201 and Scotch 
> 176 in combination, and this is usually in good shape (ie. no baking
> required). I perform (3) if there is variation in the azimuth between 
> polyester and acetate segments.
> 
> Just today I was wondering if (1) above would be a better approach
> when dealing with sticky shed in a mixed polyester/acetate reel?
> Odds are, anyone who will attempt to play such a sticky tape 
> in the future will have to go through the exact same exercise of 
> separating and baking. So why not leave things in a better state 
> for the next audio preservation engineer?

----- I think that your reasoning is sound! I vote for (1). And I would
like 
to see convincing arguments in support of (2). And, furthermore, it is
my sad 
view that only if the tape in question features in a multi-million court
case 
will it ever be played again.

Kind regards,


George

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
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