Konrad....
I tend to agree with your statement below:
On the contrary. We need to abandon the concept of the carrier medium,
rather concentrate on a file-based storage system. It is true that when
there is only a single copy, analog tape is probably the best choice, but
the best way to ensure that a recording survives is to have multiple copies
stored in different locations. At this digital excels. The ease of
migration, easy creation of multiple copies, ease of transmission etc, are a
strong argument for the superiority of digital storage. Not to mention the
much lower cost.
I guess that was what I was trying to say in an earlier email
responding to Duane "The Disk Doctor" Goldman and the CD vs. Vinyl
(more like Analogue vs. Digital):
So, summing up, I guess your take on archival
work and the CD vs Vinyl
discussion all depends on your end product and purpose.
The only technical addendum I would make regarding our project is that
we make three CD "masters" for the archive in addition to the copies
that we send out to the various broadcasters and sell on the Family
Theater Productions web site. In addition, I keep the final .wav files
on two separate hard drives which I will disconnect from my system once
I finish the project (100 more shows to go). So, we will migrate our
productions to any future media in spite of changing technologies. Oh,
Duane, we won't be throwing any of our original disks and reel to reel
tapes away; they still play beautifully in spite of the media flaws.
Now, while analogue sources seem to be with us for a while judging by
our archives begun in 1947, and our transcriptions and tapes play
beautifully, nothing lasts forever, so right now, for various reasons,
we're making .wav files to be our protection and source of migration
for the future. Also, as I said before, we're making "improvements"
(i.e., removing surface noise and click and pops), so our end product
dictates that we continue in the digital realm. If we wished to make
archival "mirrors" of our masters, we might then consider reel to reel
masters; our tape decks still make beautiful recordings. The only
other caveat is that if you're making tape dubs, you can end up adding
more tape hiss background by going reel to reel.
All the Best,
Rod Stephens
Family Theater Productions
Konrad Strauss wrote:
on 9/29/04 4:58 PM, Alyssa Ryvers at alyssa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
At the end of the day, which one do you trust? I think it's a matter of
personal responsibility, but I'm just that kind of person. I'm waiting
for something I trust more than 1/4", and I await with bated breath...
Seems like this argument keeps on surfacing. I wonder though, does it
concern you that analog tape machines, for all practical purposes, are no
longer manufactured, and that tape companies are quickly ceasing to
manufacture analog tape?
I too am concerned any time I have to play an old CDR, but I cannot say that
I have found analog tape to be any more reliable.
No matter what virtues can be expounded with respect to digital files,
I can't imagine anyone would say stability and longevity is one of
them.
On the contrary. We need to abandon the concept of the carrier medium,
rather concentrate on a file-based storage system. It is true that when
there is only a single copy, analog tape is probably the best choice, but
the best way to ensure that a recording survives is to have multiple copies
stored in different locations. At this digital excels. The ease of
migration, easy creation of multiple copies, ease of transmission etc, are a
strong argument for the superiority of digital storage. Not to mention the
much lower cost.
--
Konrad Strauss
Director of Recording Arts
Associate Professor of Music
Indiana University School of Music
http://php.indiana.edu/~kstrauss
http://www.music.indiana.edu/som/audio
|