Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum

[steven austin <stevena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The equipment could be little more than the software necessary to
translate the digital code into an audio signal, the computer to run the
software, and whatever you would choose for audio reproduction.

Steven Austin
stevena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Watsky, Lance
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:46 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum

Steve,

You make an extremely interesting point. I too have thought that we
should be focusing more on preserving the digital information rather
then the media that it is stored on. When we look at the mechanisms of
media deterioration, it is too often that the media itself broke down
(ie. delamination, sticky shed). The downside of this however is, we
would still have to have equipment that is capable of reading the data
in the future.

Lance Watsky
Preservation & Media Specialist
The Georgia Archives
5800 Jonesboro Road
Morrow, GA 30260
678-364-3764 (phone)
678-364-3860 (fax)
lwatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.GeorgiaArchives.org




-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of steven austin
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 3:13 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum


Just a thought:

Does anyone make digital audio copies from their archival sound sources,
then store the data as code printouts? Cards, paper, whatever?

I would think with digital information technology, we don't really need
to rely on tape or laser-encoded discs for archival storage when it
would be so much more efficient to store the information as digital
code, ready at any time to be translated through software into audio
sound. A hard copy of the code would avoid the degradation that all
storage media suffer and always offer a first-generation master of the
original source recovery, where a CD-R or a tape would be subject to the
condition of the transport media.

Know what I mean?

Steven Austin

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:43 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum

Hi, Kevin,

Cal State Fullerton did a similar sized collection to two CD-Rs. Sharon
Owen did a fantastic job with a little coaching and a lot of wonderful
volunteers.

I have been saying for the last four or five years that archiving to
1/4-inch is a waste of money as it won't be playable by the time the CDs
won't be playable. Not from wearing out but from no machines being
available.

Now with tape essentially unavailable (unless Quantegy gets its act
together), that is just one more good reason. I guess you could get some
of
the JAI red-oxide tape from India <sigh>.

All the best,

Richard
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/

At 12:14 PM 1/11/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Fellow Archivists,
>
>I have spent the last 7 years working with a private institutional
audio
>collection.  The collection of 7000 tapes is primarily cassette  with
some
>very early 1/4".  Up until now we have been reformatting to both CD-R
and
>full track 1/4" (7 1/2 ips).  I have been uncomfortable with the
prospect
>of putting all our historical eggs in one basket especially when that
>basket (CD-R) hasn't got much of a longterm track record.  However,
with
>the recent closing of the Quantegy plant, and the future availability
of
>1/4" tape in question, I am re-evaluating my stance.  I suspect there
have
>been many discussions on this list about format choice for preservation
>projects such as ours but I am a recent subscriber and have not had the
>good fortune to gleen the views already expressed.
>
>So, my question is really a request for a quick survey.  How many of
you
>would vote in favor of using CD-R alone, for a collection like ours,
with
>multiple copies being generated for long term preservation and access
>purposes?  (Considering that we would like not to have to do another
round
>of reformatting for at least 30 years.)
>
>Thank you in advance for your responses and any other comments you care
to
>make.
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Kevin Irelan
>SYDA Foundation
>Audio Archive