I was thinking that if it's between the content you are listening to it might be just unerased parts. If its with the content it could be different track configurations or maladjusted heads or defective original recorder.
Sent from my ringing donkey
On 25 בפבר 2013, at 18:51, John Spencer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just a thought, perhaps you are hearing either "print-through", or the re-used tapes were not de-maganitized enough to remove the original content.
> While I don't consider wikipedia the de-facto standard for all things technical, there is an article here:
> I'm only guessing, but Richard Hess might have some information on his site as well:
> If what you are hearing is somewhat similar to what you are hearing on the tape, it's probably print-through. If it is completely different material, my guess as I said earlier that the tapes weren't properly erased before they were re-used.
> I'm not the resident expert on this by any means, hopefully others can help you with some tricks once you have them in the digital domain, but I've seen both circumstances. There is no easy fix unfortunately...
> John Spencer ⎮ BMSChace
> [log in to unmask]
> 615.385.1251 phone
> 615.385.0153 fax
> 615.714.1199 mobile
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Henry Borchers wrote:
>> As I've explained in this list before, I'm currently working with digitizing a number of amateur 1/4" reels from a student radio archive. Since much of the content produced is amateurly engineered, all too often the stock was reused tape. Along with this practice, one finds artifact fragments from previous generation recordings that run for anywhere between a couple seconds to a few minutes. I am wondering if there is a proper name for these fragments. Internally, I have been using the word "ghosts" to describe these fragments but I was wondering if there was a more established name.
>> Henry Borchers
>> Broadcast Media Digitization Librarian
>> University of Maryland
>> B0221D McKeldin Library
>> College Park, MD 20742
>> (301) 405-0725