Part of the management cost is that of providing access to the file, i.e., 
cataloging.  That is a huge expense since it requires a great deal of time. 
LC is doing this now as it works its way through various broadcast 

There may be one "Your Hit Parade" file of, say 26 programs- a broadcast 
year's worth, but the file is
opaque until the songs performed on it and those singing them are cataloged, 
item by item.

Steven Smolian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study

> On 13/05/06, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>>> II.     Sound engineers and technicians: [1] perceived needs for
>>> standards or "best practices" to facilitate sharing of preserved
>>> material,
>> We already have standards for audio files that provide a lot of
>> benefit. I am seeing an attempt to use 24/96 as a standard for
>> everything. While I agree that 24/96 (or I actually prefer 24/88.2)
>> should be the norm for musical recordings, I see the uncritical
>> application of this standard to voice recordings as a waste of money.
>> I do not subscribe to the argument that disks are cheap - their
>> management is not. If the difference in archiving the oral history
>> archive is between 300 TB and 1 PB, there is a huge cost difference
>> there, long-term.
> I disagree here. The cost of management is basically a cost per item (or
> file). The number of bytes in a file has little effect.
> As storage disks get bigger, the same number of files on the same number
> of disks can be of higher quality with no extra cost.
> A high quality file might be at most six times the size of a low quality
> audio file. Now compare the change in disk capacity from the 5 1/4 inch
> floppies of 20 years ago to the DVDs of today.
> There is also an argument in favour of high quality sound for oral
> histories. In the future it may well be possible to perform computer
> analysis of speech patterns, accents, and voiceprints which are not
> possible today. Oral history material will reveal many things to
> researchers which those who simply want a text transcript of the words
> have not considered.
>>> how such standards/practices should be determined,
>> Both scientific testing and industry consensus
>>> and how
>>> often they should be subject to review
>> Probably every five years or so. Perhaps more frequently at the cusps
>> of technology.
>>> and by whom;
>> Industry experts as well as scientists
> Regards
> -- 
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/2006