[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question

Hi John:

I was just addressing migration. Regarding the other points, about properly cataloging and preserving once it's been digitized, I have to say that a place ill-equipped even to do that probably shouldn't call itself an archive or institution. It's more in line with a small-scale private collection. That place should consider giving its valuable material to a better-funded/better-staffed place that can handle and preserve it properly. But, I want to stress yet again -- it's a free country. So I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do with their stuff. If I own the Mona Lisa and I wish to hang it in my steam room, that's my business.

My point about out-sourcing was addressed to places equipped to undertake a proper preservation project in the first place. Let me cite one example. We've had a few people on this list mention either dubs of old tapes or tape-to-digital dubs that turned out bad that were done inconsistently and unprofessionally by "student labor" or "volunteers." WHile the spirit of helping was very nice, the result was useless. A much more efficient use of those places' time and money would have been to have those dubs or transfers done professionally so that a useful product would result. Furthermore, a higher quality product is a great insurance policy that it will be considered worthy of the cost of digital preservation over time.

I specifically did not address issues like metadata and the like because THAT's the expertise that should be IN-HOUSE with any sort of an archive or funded collection. My point was, out-source the skill that's critical to getting the preservation right -- proper audio professional expertise -- and keep the library-science work, which is absolutely key to long-term preservation and making the material useful to people, in the realm of collections and libraries. If this strikes a nerve of people fearing for jobs, I wouldn't worry. There is so much stuff out there to preserve and it's decaying every day. I think it's a generation-long race to get it all off the decaying analog media.

As always, one man's opinion here.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Spencer" <js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question


Tom and others,

I have been watching this thread with great interest on a number of levels. I think Mr. Fine's referral to Richard Hess is certainly a great point of reference, and I hope the initial poster gets the information that he needs.

Your points on the specific tape in question are certainly valid.

However, I must challenge a few of your thoughts regarding the resultant digital preservation files that are created by migration projects - whether done in house or out-sourced.


This is why I urge institutions and collections to consider out- sourcing audio transfer to professionals if they don't have the skills or equipment in-house. Much better they specialize in cataloging, making available for public consumption and then digitally preserving (ie tending the hard disc farm, getting funding to keep it tended, migrating to new digital media when necessary, etc)


The inference here is that all institutions and collections have the IT infrastructure that you allude to (i.e. "hard disk farm", etc.). One of the main problems I have seen is that most small archives do not have the resources that you list. Quite the contrary, many small archives have no such access.

Databases and metadata are yet another issue that seems to have been glossed over in this post, and they play a SIGNIFICANT role in the sustainability of digital preservation files, and the inconsistency in databases runs rampant.


Furthermore, I can say pretty darn confidently that in many cases a collection or institution gets much more bang for the grant buck by outsourcing transfer and then taking care of the digital cleanup/ processing/slicing/dicing/preserving in-house.


If the tools are available, yes, otherwise a pretty broad assumption.


Bottom line is, if you care about what's on a tape and there are signs the tape won't play correctly, you can't wish the problems away. You have to know what you're doing and take the proper measures or the tape can easily be ruined forever.


Let's not forget that once the migration has taken place, the resultant IT issues remain. Of course, without a proper migration, all of my points are moot.

Best,
John Spencer

John Spencer
BMS/ Chace LLC
1801 8th Ave. S.  Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
office (615) 385-1251
fax (615) 385-0153
cell (615) 714-1199
email: js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.bridgemediasolutions.com


On Oct 9, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Tom Fine wrote:

Hi Brandon:

Here's my last word on this. Unfortunately, wishes aren't horses, as they say. If you have a damaged tape and you don't take proper measures to un-damage it as best as possible, and then you try to play it, you will get nothing usable to preserve and you will ruin the tape. That is simply fact. This is why I urge institutions and collections to consider out-sourcing audio transfer to professionals if they don't have the skills or equipment in-house. Much better they specialize in cataloging, making available for public consumption and then digitally preserving (ie tending the hard disc farm, getting funding to keep it tended, migrating to new digital media when necessary, etc) than trying to wear too many hats. It's hard enough to have a staff that is truly expert in the collection and well versed in proper cataloging and preservation and public-availability methods -- that is a ton of expertise right there. Most places can't afford to then add another layer of audio transfer/analog format expert and still another layer of equipment-maintenance/fix-it expert. Furthermore, I can say pretty darn confidently that in many cases a collection or institution gets much more bang for the grant buck by outsourcing transfer and then taking care of the digital cleanup/processing/slicing/dicing/ preserving in-house. Why? It's hard on a grant-to-grant budget to keep the needed expertise in-house and harder still to keep fussy antique playback equipment in top condition. Thus, it's hard to be assured of a proper transfer on one pass or many passes -- with each pass further deteriorating the source material.

One man's opinion here ...

Bottom line is, if you care about what's on a tape and there are signs the tape won't play correctly, you can't wish the problems away. You have to know what you're doing and take the proper measures or the tape can easily be ruined forever.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Burke"  <burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question


Tom (and all),

Apologies if my response seemed harsh, i certainly wasn't  directing  anything
at you personally..

I do however think it's important for us to keep in mind the fact that a good
percentage of the readers on this list are not engineers but rather representatives of collecting
bodies (institutional or otherwise) trying to get a grip on how to manage their holdings.

With that in mind, and given our well-intentioned propensity to  look  at problems
from as many angles as possible, i fear that sometimes we have  the  tendency to dive
head-first into worst-case scenarios rather than looking at  David's  original post as a more
general problem.

To be sure, I haven't disagreed with anything you've offered to  this  discussion.
It is important to me, though, that we make this forum as helpful  as  possible to those without
the resources to, say, establish tape playback capabilities within  a  cold storage environment.

And that's all i'm going to say on that matter.
Four posts in 24hrs is way over my limit. (hint hint..)

cheers,
Brandon Burke


On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Tom Fine wrote:

Hi Brandon:

Who's talking about "delegitimizing" anything? That's what's bananas! Do whatever you want with your tapes, everyone, please. Hopefully they will play well and true and not be ruined with whatever processes you decide to employ. I'm just speaking as someone who has quite a bit of experience with problem tapes and I'm saying wait for advice from someone who I would consider expert in problem tapes. Anyone can do whatever they want, it's your tapes. Hopefully they won't get ruined (and if they do get ruined, hopefully they're not the tapes that contain that secret section of the Nixon tapes).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Burke"   <burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question


Some good (and certainly responsible) points here, but I feel
compelled to say that i'm uncomfortable with the idea that there
exists somewhere a *true* sticky shed, and that only tapes  "bound   together
until treated" qualify. This not only delegitimizes anything  less  than
over-the-top obvious hydrolysis, it also implies that (1)   absolutely any
and every reel of poly tape, provided it contains at least one   splice,
should be frozen before playback just in case the inner splice  is  sticky
and (2) we all have the option of freezing reels and playing  them  back
in a refrigerator.

That's bananas..

Brandon Burke





On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Tom Fine wrote:

Hi Brandon:

The problem is, there could well be parts of the tape pack that are stuck together (pinning and I forgot the other word Richard uses). So unrolling those parts before they are treated will destroy them (peel the oxide off). I asked Richard about this very type of reel before and if I recall the answer is freeze it and then play it cold (ie tape machine in a fridge) at very slow speed, which should unstick the bound portions enough to spool onto a reel for baking. The other parts, like 176, don't respond to baking and need the full cold treatment, if I recall. It's much more complicated that just spooling pieces off because true sticky- shed tape is probably bound together until treated and thus will be destroyed by spooling until it's treated.

Don't take what I say is gospel truth. Let Richard weigh in since he's done the research.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Burke"    <burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question


First of all, i mean not to steal
Richard H's thunder, as he knows quite
a bit more about this subject than me.

That said, it strikes me that the solution
proposed here only accounts for splices
*so* sticky as to be identifiable by touch alone.
Thus allowing selections exhibiting less
ridiculously obvious stages of hyrolysis
to miss the boat.

Brandon Burke



Quoting Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Guys, this is not all correct. Wait for Richard Hess to chime in.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape baking question


> That was sort of what I expected the answer to be.
>
> dl
>
> "joe@xxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
>
>> If memory serves, baking is known to be detrimental to some
types of
>> tape, so I'd suggest separating them out as best you can,
bake,
>> reassemble and Xfer.
>>
>> Joe Salerno
>> Industrial Video Services
>> PO Box 273405
>> Houston Texas 77277-3405
>>
>> David Lennick wrote:
>> > Here's one for the team. Let's say you have a reel made
up of
several short
>> > pieces of tape, either a compilation or a master or just
something
where it was
>> > convenient to group similar pieces of material together.
Let's say
SOME of the
>> > selections are recorded on 176, some on 456, some on god
knows
what....and of
>> > course, now you have a tape that has sticky shed on only
some of the
tracks. Do
>> > you bake the whole thing or try and remove only the
portions
that
need
>> > treatment and bake them?
>> >
>> > --Stuck
>> >




--
Brandon Burke
Archivist for Audio Collections
Hoover Institution Archives
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
vox: 650.724.9711
fax: 650.725.3445
email: burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


____________________________________
Brandon Burke
Archivist for Audio Collections
Hoover Institution Archives
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
vox: 650.724.9711
fax: 650.725.3445
email: burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


____________________________________
Brandon Burke
Archivist for Audio Collections
Hoover Institution Archives
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
vox: 650.724.9711
fax: 650.725.3445
email: burke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]