Print

Print


Thanks George

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:24 PM, George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Marie,
>
> you ask a very short and hence very difficult question.
>
> > George, can I ask you this. Do you work in an archive with limited space?
>
> ----- I shall answer all the aspects I can see in it.
>
> 1) yes, both to archival space and to laboratory space. The first would
> make
> me deplore having to provide space for two boxes where one would do. The
> second may prevent me from doing more than just try to play the tape, give
> up
> and put it back in its box. It saves a lot of time.
>
> 2) the second aspect is "what is an archive". In my case it is a reference
> collection of recording, storage, and reproduction principles exemplified
> by
> individual samples. Attached to this is a collection of challenged
> artefacts
> (wear, fungus, exposure to unsuitable climate). If a principle can only be
> determined from a recording by statistical analysis, I may have a number of
> similarly looking recordings. The archive only serves myself and those that
> I
> teach in courses (in the beginning at the School of Conservation in
> Copenhagen, now only as a private lecturer and consultant). Unless the
> archive goes to an institution it will disappear with me.
>
> 3) the third aspect is "work". I do professional work in this field, but I
> cannot sustain my private economy on that. I have a great freedom to choose
> what I want to investigate. Those who do archive work for a living rarely
> have this freedom.
>
> 4) one aspect is your own reason for asking the question. It would seem
> that
> you have limited physical space. However, in Eric's solution (1) the only
> extra space needed is the volume taken up by the many leaders that he has
> to
> insert. And remember, he does that, not only to cater for different tape
> stock types, but also to cater for differences in azimuth in a tape that is
> composed of several pieces recorded on possibly different machines. It is
> an
> admirable approach that does not seem to take more time than doing a proper
> job.
>
> Perhaps you are referring to space in the computer filing system for the
> metadata. Perhaps it is the your experience that fields are too small, the
> vocabulary uncontrolled. I myself have no limitation on fields, because
> they
> are only limited by the next separator.
>
> A number of statements I have made over the years have irritated archvists
> in
> large archives, because I have gone to the fundamentals, something of a
> luxury in archive circles. The IASA Conference in Vienna 1999 was a good
> example: the audience gasped when I said that the future would want breadth
> rather than a few, selected items picked out for the perfect transfer. This
> can only be obtained by spending less time on fine-tuning a transfer
> (reducing the factor), in order to provide more preserved sound. Even lack
> of
> detailled documentation of the procedures (something of a time spender in
> transfer) could be dispensed with: rather a trace of almost anything than
> High Fidelity of the few chosen items. I do not say these things lightly, I
> have thought about them; one publication I can recommend is:
>
> Brock-Nannestad, G.: "Applying the Concept of Operational Conservation
> Theory
> to Problems of Audio Restoration and Archiving Practice", AES Preprint No.
> 4612, 103nd Convention 1997 September 26-29, New York.
>
> It is well worth the USD 20 to non-AES members, and at USD 5 to members it
> is
> a gift.
>
> So, you see what a short question (and a hint of sarcasm??) can provide as
> an
> answer.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Marie O'Connell wrote, and George comments:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I really like your thinking here Eric, as I can see you have really
> > > > thought
> > > > about it and worked with it.
> > > >
> > > > As others have said, there can be problems with each method,
> attaching
> > > > like
> > > > with like, and documenting with leader, details, eventually the lose
> of
> > a
> > > > tape and the information if it is not well documented, etc.
> > > >
> > > > I would love to separate it all into stock parts and document that
> but
> > > the
> > > > reality is....time and person power.  Do we actually have the time to
> > do
> > > > all
> > > > of this?  This would also involve for our archive, discussing at
> great
> > > > length a new file format to deal with this as it now becomes more
> that
> > > one
> > > > object.  These objects have already been alloted a numbering system,
> as
> > a
> > > > single file (if they have been preserved)..  Also, do we house them
> > > > together?  This also involves somehow extending the shelving, which
> is
> > > > already tight, to fit the 'extra tapes' in.
> > >
> > > ----- you seem to presume (as did Mike Biel) that from one reel we get
> > two
> > > reels. In a world where we could store each item according to its
> > > individual
> > > climatic requirements, this would be natural. However, why not keep it
> > on
> > > one
> > > reel, only shuffled according to Eric's rule (1). This would only mean
> > to
> > > stick end-to end that which has already been necessary work for the
> > > transfer
> > > process.
> > >
> > > The question then becomes a combination of "tails out?" and "acetate or
> > > polyester out?". I would propose SS-prone out, because that provides
> the
> > > largest radius of curvature of that part of the pack.
> > >
> > > Discussions of file format "at great length" is never expenditure, it
> is
> > > investment, and you had better plan ahead.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Archivally and considering the integrity of what we deal with, I
> > believe
> > > > the
> > > > practise is to leave it the way it is, but document it thoroughly,
> > which
> > > I
> > > > am sure we all hope, wish and have great hopes in, will remain in the
> > > > metadata we are presently creating. (fingers crossed!).
> > >
> > > ----- well, the way I understand Eric is that it is already impossible
> > to
> > > leave it the way it is, because it has been separated to bits in the
>  > > process.
> > > So, you could just as well be intelligent about re-assembly. And if you
> > are
> > > using a system in which you need to keep your fingers crossed and hope
> > for
> > > consistency and validity of the metadata--well, then your system is not
> > > good
> > > enough. If you can neither authenticate nor find information as to what
> > you
> > > have done to the original, you could just as well discard it after
> > having
> > > made the documented transfer. It all comes down to trusting the person
> > who
> > > has performed the transfer.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > However, there are problems faced by archives and perhaps not places
> > who
> > > > do
> > > > not already have a system in place and there are great resources for
> > them
> > > > to
> > > > go to with ARSC and IASA and FACET, etc.
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM, George Brock-Nannestad
> > > > <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > with reference to his earlier posting
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject:        [ARSCLIST] Best practice: mixed acetate and
> > polyester
> > > > reels
> > > > > with
> > > > > sticky shed
> > > > >        Date sent:      Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:08:48 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > >  - and in response to several responses on the list
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric Jacobs wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, I don't want to persevere on the tape type too much, and
> > > > > > would rather focus on the best way to process an
> acetate/polyester
> > > > > > reel with "sticky" tape in the mix.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Eric, people respond to what they can relate to and where
> they
> > > > > believe
> > > > > they can provide useful input. It does not appear that those who
> are
> > > > > concerned with the nitty-gritty of treating tape types are
> > necessarily
> > > > > those
> > > > > who have a philosophical view of what is to be done with our
> > heritage
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > long run. The authenticity and authentication issues I brought up
> in
> > my
> > > > > response almost never feature in preservation discussions, except
> in
> > > > > forensic
> > > > > work. Undoing splices is one of the grossest attacks on the
> > integrity
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > > linear file (which a tape is). I remember my movie projectionist
> > days:
> > > a
> > > > > film
> > > > > had split in several places and at the time you lost one frame for
> > each
> > > > > splice. I put the film back together for screening, and--oh,
> > shame--a
> > > > > sequence of a man climbing ladders to paste a huge poster was
> > suddenly
> > > > > showing a man rocketing and plummeting and working on several
> sheets
> > at
> > > > > once.
> > > > > I had to take the film apart again and find the correct sequence.
> > > Losing
> > > > > several frames.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > >
>