[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ARSCLIST] Databases--was: Tape baking question
I'll answer this at the top this time!
The important point here...and one with which ARSC could and should
assist...
is the citation of "inconsistant/undstandardized database files." My
expertise is in
disc records, not tapes (or digital files/archives)...however, it would seem
that
there is a great deal that would apply to virtually any archived/collected
sound
(or other such forms...i.e. video, motion pictures, documents, usw.)
recordings
or digital files. Having even a "Recommended" format for databases used to
keep track of either items in a collection/archive...or collections of data
concerning either all items fitting a given specification (i.e. 10" 78rpm
discs)
or an identified subset of same (all Gennett records, all records issued in
a given year, all records of a given artist or artists, usw.) would allow a
certain amount of "interchangeability" between different databases meeting
the standards...and/or allow the creation of an "ultimate" database covering
a number of collections (as the RDI was intended to become...).
Steven C. Barr
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Spencer" <js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
> >
>