Re: [ARSCLIST] Certification (was Re: [ARSCLIST] Wire recorders)

["Steven C. Barr" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Noring" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Richard L. Hess wrote:
> > There seems to be an interesting dividing line between the straight
> > transfer and the cleaned (edited) copy.
> > I insist that the archives that I work with take two unprocessed
> > transfers and then I also provide (typically) two processed copies.
> > Only the most enlightened archives with good material seem to
> > understand this.
> The proposed approach for Project Gramophone (Sound Preserve), is to
> create high-quality *raw* digital transfers of the original 78 source
> material, and to make them freely available to the public in some
> fashion, as allowed by law. (How to meet legal requirements is being
> investigated by Brewster Kahle at the Internet Archive who has already
> consulted with IP attornies in Europe -- waiting to hear back about
> his findings.)
>
> The rationale is that over time digital audio restoration technologies
> will continue to improve and evolve, so having the raw, high-quality
> digital transfers archived and available is more important. That is,
> once a raw transfer is digitally restored, it can't be returned to the
> original raw digital state for new restoration -- a restored version
> is, in effect, a third-generation copy of the original (1. original
> disc --> 2. raw digital transfer --> 3. digitally restored copy.) It's
> much better to have a digital library of raw transfers rather than the
> restored versions where the raw transfers are not preserved or made
> available.
>
> Of course, one can argue that the technologies for digital transfering
> from 78 source material will also continue to improve. And this is
> true. However, there is a need for digital preservation NOW, as well
> as into the future. So the key is to do the absolute best transfers,
> within reason of course, today, using today's technology (which is
> both stylus playback and optical laser playback -- I'd try to do both,
> when possible, for the same disc.)
>
> As far as I can tell, the ultimate long-term raw digital transfers
> will be done using ultra-high-resolution optical microtopography (which
> is now being studied at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.) But unless there
> are some unforeseen breakthroughs, I don't see that as being practical
> for at least decade (and probably more) except for extraordinarily
> rare and noteworthy discs and cylinders (the scan time has to greatly
> speed up, and the amount of digital data collected per disk will also
> be huge, probably many times more than high-quality digital transfers
> using today's playback technologies.) Some of the intermediate-level
> optical topograhic scanning techniques LBL is now working on might
> become competitive with mechanical/laser playback a little sooner --
> when is hard to say. But again, we can't predict if the LBL research
> will ever lead to a practical digital transfer system, so no use
> waiting around for a couple decades to see if that will lead to a
> much-wanted breakthrough.
>
> In the meanwhile, for digital archiving *today*, mechanical and laser
> playback is the state-of-the-art. As I see it now (subject to change
> as the experts converge on the requirements), for "regular" 78 discs,
> use a single playback speed of 78.23 (unless the recording speed is
> known with 100.00% certainty), use a totally neutral (flat)
> equalization (system calibrated). Digitize with professional-grade
> equipment at a minimum of 96k/24-bit/2-channel resolution. Use a
> top-grade turntable/tone-arm/cartridge combination (as well as that
> Japanese laser turntable whose name eludes me at the moment.) Do maybe
> 2-3 passes with different styli diameter/shapes (and if laser playback
> is possible, do that, too.) Of course, use the best system to clean
> the discs when allowable. Record the full metadata of the performance
> as given on the record, and digitally photograph/scan the label,
> run-out area and anywhere else where data occurs on the disc. Record
> the full metadata regarding the transfer process itself. I could go
> on, but this covers the major items I can think of from the top of my
> head.
Two comments:
1) This will have to be mounted in some type of mobile platform, which
enables it to travel to various sites. few institutions and even fewer
private collectors will have, or be able to afford for that matter, a
state-of-the-art playback system such as described above...so, when one
is assembled, it probably should be able to travel where the disc archives
are, if only due to the problems involved in moving 78's by the thousands!

2) When transcription of data becomes necessary (discographic, not sound),
it will be necessary to use knowledgeable individuals to do so. This was
the notable flaw in the RDI project...the use of untrained data entry
personnel meant that data was often entered in incorrect fields, and, as
well, typos and similar errors were not obvious to the party entering
the data and thus not caught at the time!
Steven C. Barr

PS: I note that replying to this list message produced an off-list
message to Mr. Noring. Has this setting been changed by the listowner?
It was necessary to manually insert the list address.