Is this a proper use of “normalize” in the archivist industry? I would think “standardize” would be more correct.
“Normalize" has to do with audio manipulation and levels in my world… I’ve never heard it used in this way.
Lou Judson * Intuitive Audio
I'm just a simple sound engineer, nothing more, nothing less.
-- paraphrase of the Dalai Lama.
On May 11, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Matthew Snyder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From an archivist's point of view this is potentially odd: the basic rule
> of thumb is to preserve the format as it arrives at the archives, and
> normalize (i.e. convert to a preferred format) for preservation and access,
> but still preserve the original, just because it is the original. If
> National Archives of Australia is keeping whatever comes in and normalizing
> to FLAC, that's ok, but if they're converting to FLAC and getting rid of
> the original, that's not good practice for a variety of reasons. I agree
> that as memory gets cheaper the rationale for compression gets weaker,
> under any circumstances. Can anyone propose to revise the standard for WAV
> to include more robust metadata?