How can this be structured in some logical, evolutionary way without having it take 5-10 years and
too many meetings? Does an organization exist that can oversee such a task without klutzing it up
with too many initial formal concerns?
Could it be done informally first, on the net, to feed into such an organization withou the net
structure turning wiki?
And would that organization be the AES, ARSC, SAA or some other entity, perhaps one hosted and
overseen by the preservation office of the LOC? The more I think about it, the more I feel the
mission of the host should be preservation, one that has a visceral understanding of audio issues.
And is someone saving these emails? Lots of good ideas and comments in them can be used to frame
up a shoot-downable document to get things rolling.
And someone has to be the structural boss, one we all acknowledge as such.
Thoughts?
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andes, Donald" <Donald.Andes@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what next??
Hold on a second Steve....before we all start handing over blank checks
to Jim Lindner.
To quote myself:
The next step is then agreeing on naming conventions, metadata
collection standards, and cross reference sources.
Lobbying for money to get some machines, is great (and will get it's
due, in time) but if you don't fully understand what to do with the
output of your process (or what to call those thousands of files you
created), I think you may find yourself in a bit of a bind. You also run
the risk of having your funding pulled once your source realizes you
haven't thought this ALL THE WAY through. I've "heard" this to be the
reasoning behind the halt on a few digital initiatives internally at
EMI, before my time.
The end goal here has to be identified before deciding on the path.
Are we looking to:
-simply migrate from Analog to Digital (and why?)
-increase accessibility (how far and to who?)
-increase our knowledge about what these recording actually contain (by
how much?)
-hand these digital files off to a repository (either now of in the
future?)
-other reasons????
There's a lot of great buzz words regarding assets nowadays, but without
knowing your destination, you're almost sure to get lost.
There are many reasons everyone is not going digital with their archives
just yet. Jim apparently solved at least some of the Hardware issues (I
still haven't seen the system) but we need to put our heads together on
figuring the rest of the pieces of the plan out. THEN we can approach
the money sources, with a plan in hand. Otherwise, it just doesn't make
sense.
Ideas:
On the grandest scheme, could localized libraries/archives/repositories
all be feeding into some uber-data storage site run by the LOC, or some
other institution? Shifting the IT end to a centralized location.
Could all the small transfer houses buy some machines from Jim, and
adhere to a set of standard practice to implement this mega digital
initiative? Instead of everyone running in there own direction.
Could the costs be spread between different levels of the government,
and or institutions? Because there's probably more then one place to get
the money, and we'd need to identify them all for a project of scale to
be seen all the way through.
Don Andes
Director of Archives
EMI Music
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:24 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
next??
Good news, Jim.
Funding sources are the next (or simultaneous) step. That means a
budget.
That means a stepwise approach has to be assembled.
Is this a "save our sound" big grant project?
It this to be done in a central location(s) or at each individual site?
Work would be required to go through each clump (archive, accumulation,
etc.) to get a count, figure out what problems exist, decide what other
work will be required (creation of ID, cataloging, metadata, etc.) to
eventually feed into a general data base and allow the holder to use his
own search-and-find system meanwhile. This should be done by roaming
professionals, not in-house guys who have been to a workshop. Perhaps a
team of one of us and one of them would also allow training of the next
generation of those comfortable with older stuff.
The "important to whom" question comes up. There are churches and
historical societies with cabinets full of cassettes, etc., with
interviews and recordings of local historical events. I've worked on
many, and, at least to me, they are often far more interesting and
informative than a routine broadcast of the Franck D minor Symphony.
The whole target media issue needs further exploration. Should there be
a central location with bouncing computers and backups to the backup
generators? I work immediately next door to a pathology company that
tests its two generators every Thursday afternoon. That's how I know
it's Thursday.
We must be prepared with lots of info before sitting down at the table
with the grantors.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lindner" <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization / the gear DOES exist, what
next??
Let me provide some factual information here that may be helpful.
Yes,
and automated system to redo film splices has been made and does
exist in
prototype form. That effort was undertaken as part of the PrestoSpace
project. It was designed for 16mm film and was designed to be
tolerant
enough to consider film that had a very substantial amount of
shrinkage.
The system was also designed to repair damaged sprocket holes as well
because the splicing tape used was sprocketed - this is my
recollection.
I did not see the machine myself but I did see several presentations
where it was shown. There were some issues. I can find out more
detail if
there is interest on the list.
Our company has been working for some time on a new series of tape
cleaners. These machines were under development for over 4 years.
They
are dramatically different then any other cleaner made for tape in
many
ways - one of which is that they were designed specifically for
issues
that relate to old tape. They use the familiar tissue wipe system
although I will rather proudly say- that we have made some pretty
good
improvements on the basic concept which includes sensors that "look
at"
the tissue to tell when it is clean and change speed of transport as
well
as torque depending on the results of those sensors and others -
including continuous monitoring of tape tension and motor current.
This
is not a sales plug - I just want you to know that this work as been
done. The cleaners are in production and available for purchase.
There
are different models that vary by shell size - and have to. So there
is
one for the VHS FAMILY (which includes SVHS... .all the flavors)
Betacam - includes betamax, digibeta... all the flavors, and
Umatic....
same story. They accommodate large and small cassettes in their
respective families. These are state of the art devices with computer
interfaces and we have written software to interface to them. They
are
being sold with our without software - so if you wanted to "roll your
own" software to control your cleaning machine just the way you want
to -
we will give you the protocol and go to town. These are professional
machines and we obviously are not making a huge amount of them. So
they
are not inexpensive - but they work and do a much better job then any
other machine ever made to clean tapes.
We are working on a machine for reel to reel tapes. We are using the
successful design for the cassette devices and are using as many of
the
same design elements in these units as we can. We have also solicited
outside design input from some people - a few are on this list. We
are
not done - but the cleaner will use the tissue cleaning system as
well as
our sensing system and will accomodate reels from 2" to 1/4".
We have not done any work on an automated splicing system, but I
believe
that the work done on film system could likely be transported to a
reel
to reel device for audio tape.
But - and here it would be very important to hear from you - the
"industry".
These devices are expensive. They are expensive to develop and
expensive
to manufacture. Since we are not making thousands of them - it is
likely
that they will continue to be expensive to produce - and there has to
be
a "market" for the devices - because there isnt much point in making
them
unless there is a real market with people with real money who are
willing
to pay for them to do mass digitization work. The machines are cost
effective in an environment where many tapes need to be processed and
time and quality are important factors - this means that this is not
hobbyist gear.
For years people in this field complained that there was no vendor
who
made the kind of equipment that was needed. Now there is - but what
we
need to know - is that now that we have done all of this work and
spent
all of the money - now that the possibility really exists to do the
work - how many people are going to step up to the challenge and
start
doing it. We are having very good success in the Broadcast and
Library
sectors - what about the other sectors? In particular - the archive
sector - which was the initial market we targeted in the first place.
So - if we all agree that Mass Digitization is important - what I
want to
know is - how many of you are willing to step up to the challenge and
start really working on it? The gear now exists. We are eager to hear
about people willing to take out their checkbooks and start to work
out
THEIR strategies to make this all work. We offer the building blocks
- no
one has ever done that. No one ever made a TBC that was designed
specifically for Archival tapes - now it exists - Broadcasters are
buying, Libraries are buying, what about you - the restoration
specialists???? I am eager to hear what you have to say.
Jim Lindner
Email: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Media Matters LLC.
SAMMA Systems LLC.
450 West 31st Street 4th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10001
eFax (646) 349-4475
Mobile: (917) 945-2662
Office: (212) 268-5528
www.media-matters.net
Media Matters LLC. is a technical consultancy specializing in
archival
audio and video material. We provide advice and analysis, to media
archives that apply the beneficial advances in technology to
collection
management.
www.sammasystems.com
SAMMA Systems provides tools and products that implement and optimize
the
advances in modern technology with established media preservation and
access practices.
On May 17, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Robert Hodge wrote:
Not even film can be spliced automatically due to the fact that it
shrinks
and will not fit on a splicer fixture designed to accept non shrunken
film.
As the shrinkage percentage can vary widely in both longitudinal and
horizontal planes, I suspect that any attempt to automate it will be
doomed to failure.
Yes, it takes a skilled preson to do it correctly ! Without Question
!!
R. Hodge
Robert Hodge,
Senior Engineer
Belfer Audio Archive
Syracuse University
222 Waverly Ave .
Syracuse N.Y. 13244-2010
315-443- 7971
FAX-315-443-4866
tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5/17/2007 3:53 PM >>>
Boy, if it were my company jewels (assets), I sure wouldn't trust a
robot to fix splices. That's a
real skill that takes a skilled person. Remember that film is
sproketed, so perhaps
splice-fix-automation is easier to design.
Also, why do you say "ALL" polyester tape needs baking? Where do you
get that? Only certain types of
know sticky-shed tapes from certain eras need baking.
Instead of taking the typical engineer road and trying to invent some
overblown gadget, companies
and institutions should realize the need to spend what it takes to
get
skilled labor to do the job
right. Skilled labor can do a better job working with relatively
simple
and non-costly setups. The
biggest threat to archiving is mass-inefficiency and duplicated labor
because of non-communication
and fiefdom/stovepipe mentalities. Again, better to invest in the
skilled personnel to run these
organizations correctly.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Smolian" <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
If we're going to discuss this a possible solution, we need to look
at the inevitable problems
that will arise and figure out ways to deal with them beforehand.
Splices have to be checked and remade, tape baked, etc., etc., etc.
That's real reel time. If
that is not done, there will be a lot of crashing and (non disc)
burning.
Have the film people come up with an automatic splicer (for pre
digital film?) If so, perhaps
that technology could be applied to tape, at least, acetate based.
ALL polyester would have to be
baked and quickly also run through the auto-resplicer, should one
exist, befor the tape becomes
sticky again.
There will surely be a need for pressure pad machines, with tape
candidates requiring their use
having been selected by a human, since flatening curled tape
naturally is time consuming.
We may have to live with out-of-phase stereo in first level storage
and correct it at playback.
So let's look at this not as a problem but as a design issue.
The sky will fall only if we let it.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andes, Donald" <Donald.Andes@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
Since we're mostly in agreement, I'll try keep my responses short.
See below...
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:21 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
"Andes, Donald" <Donald.Andes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
***It's most likely that our Archeologist friends are better than we
at
developing cost effective plans to achieve their goal, which may be
easier when justifying project costs against the collection of
"priceless" artifacts. It is also very possible that we're comparing
apples to oranges, as they most likely have very different funding
sources.
**Over the years I have reviewed many grant applications for audio
preservation projects. The content and methodology have ranged from
well
considered to the absurd. The question really that comes to my mind
is
the notion of cost effective. Grant funding is, by design, not
predicated on notions of "cost effective." Also, very few proposals
I
have read, address questions of efficiency. It is my thinking that
cost
effective means that it can pay for itself. I believe that the
copyrights in the US, and the very functionalism of libraries (free
to
the public) prevent libraries and archives from realizing
substantive
financial return for their efforts.
**I guess I don't see that we are comparing apple and oranges,
unless
we
choose to make such a differentiation. It seems to me that
uncovering
a
fragment of a clay pot, is not unlike reclaiming a bit of audio.
Once
the "artifact" has been recovered, there is then the question of
cataloging it and its preservation.
The apples to oranges retort come from the fact that nothing you'll
uncover by digging in the ground comes with copyright, performance,
and
estate issues. Also, most of what Archeoloigists are looking for
have
wider appeal, since it connect dots in the greater fabric of our
existence. Uncovering a audio masterpiece may help us understand a
composers intent, or help resolve a dispute over chord progressions
or
unresolved notes, but it's still a very niche area. Again scope
comes
into play here.
***2) The under appreciation/underpaying of Library and Archiving
staff:
The world today (more than ever) comes down to profitability. Since
libraries don't make profits, it falls in line that there not going
to
be handling out high paying jobs working for a Library. High paying
jobs
can easily be had in the Finance, Legal, and Medical worlds. This
has
been true for years, but for librarians the cold hard facts haven't
sunken in. Do I believe they should be paid more, of course I do.
But
do
I think they ever will, not in my lifetime.
**I agree. I would also suggest that the available salaries for
libraries will continue to decline due to the decline in use
statistics.
I believe it will be increasingly difficult for those charged with
making budget decisions to justify library budgets. However, one
needs
to keep in mind that libraries and archives exist as "public
utilities"
of a sort. They are funded as we fund our fire departments. They are
seen as serving a common good. Yet, indeed, as the funding of public
utilities is being more subject to funding predicated on use, (toll
roads being but one example) libraries are very likely to experience
even more substantive reductions in public funding.
**My thinking is that libraries seem to be trying to compete in
areas
where they have already lost. Libraries are trying to counter the
defection to google and yahoo, by becoming movie theaters and snack
bars.
**On the other hand, I believe that libraries need to refocus their
remaining resources more to the preservation of our intellectual
history...being museums of a different sort.
Not to play the pessimist, but I find Libararies will be following
records stores to their demise, and I question what can be done, so
late
in the game to change the inevitable.
Also, Police and Fire services can be seen as government protection
against liabilities. Libraries do not offer this function to the
government with it serves.
***The fact is that we have massive amounts of history from the
1900's
in every field. Are we missing important stuff, sure we are. But the
unfortunate fact is that not enough people care enough about what's
missing. And more so, not enough profitability can be had from
collecting what was lost, to make it a worthwhile endeavor.
**Indeed, that is my question, what can we realistically hope to
preserve. Also tied into that question is the criteria used to
decide
what we should preserve. Who has those skills? What sort of training
is
needed?
I believe we COULD preserve it all, however, we (the archival
community)
need to start putting more time into large scale cohesive planning
and
lobbying for funding to support it, instead of running around crying
that the sky is falling.
Just take a look at what Google books is doing. I'm not in 100%
agreement with the plan or it's direction, but think of the scale.
Think
of what they set out to accomplish. Strange, how no one IN the
community
thinks on this level.
***Think of it: That lost treasure of sound, that we thought the
world
would never hear again. Suddenly found, in pristine condition....How
many downloads, CD's excetera could you possibly sell? Unless it the
Beatles or Elvis it's most likely a lot LESS than you would think.
**Having my own record company and having issued historic
performances,
I have some practical experience. I can find no rationale for what
sells
and what does not.
**I am often reminded of the interest in the music of Mahler. While
there were a few of the faithful around when he died...consider the
notion that since he was not given much credit as a composer when he
died, nobody preserved his manuscripts. We now have a market for
Mahler.
It is difficult to second guess what product might find that
"Tipping
point" and what might not. Thankfully, Mahler's music has been
preserved. How do you know there is a market for a product unless
you
have the product and make it available?
Well that's what the business is all about. We do market research,
sign
artists, and take chances. We don't sign everyone we could, and we
don't
always sign artists that are profitable. Regardelss, it's highly
unlikely that any "found" audio will reap large sums of money;
especially in this market already inundated with catalog releases
and
slipping CD sales.
***3) Metadata concerns:
Here's the white elephant in the room. Everyone wants to
preserve/transfer/digitize, but guess what??? If you don't have a
complete and correct metadata standard in place, you'll probably do
more
harm then good. Once things are transferred, the value of storing
the
original drops (to the non archivist) and people assume that they'll
never need to go back to it. That is until, we try to understand
what
the heck the file is, since your metadata seems spotty, and possibly
incorrect.
**Again, I agree completely. While great work is being done in Music
Information Retrieval, as for the metadata, libraries are having a
rough time these days. I consider the aborted attempts to revise the
cataloging rules. I believe it is time for a complete overhaul of
cataloging (metadata preparation, description, and cataloging
methodology). It is my hope that some enterprising company will
come
up
with some highly efficient, less labor intensive, system for the
creation of metadata, one that is so inexpensive that libraries will
be
forced into making changes.
**I believe it is irrational to expect libraries to do it on their
own.
To abandon MARC voluntarily seems not only unlikely, but
irrational...there is too much money invested in the old
methodology.
Like Google books, I'm sure those outside the industry will figure
this
all out for us, whether the solution is fool proof or not.
Regardless,
it will just verify that our industry is lost and behind the times,
and
our dismal salaries are in line with what they should be.
****4) Formatting/Migration issues:
Yikes. This was hiding being the white elephant called metadata. And
again, unless you figure this out UP FRONT, why bother digitizing?
**I agree in part. While there are many valid points to be made to
reformat recordings on stable media, I am a firm believer in
addressing
the media which is chemically unstable.
Obviously migrating to avoid permanemt loss is manditory, but
digitizing
analog reels in stable condition without connecting all the dots
seems
pointless to me, which is why I advocate against it.
****5) And finally to address your last statement:
I think the archiving world has it's blinders on, and needs to pull
back, rationalize a bit, and find it's place in the modern world of
business, technology, culture, and government. It's not effort or
caring
that this industry lacks; it's scope, direction and rational.
**Again, I agree.
**I believe that the pressures from the private sector are forcing
libraries and archives to reconsider their place in society. I would
wager that many of us have plenty of good ideas as to how to
significantly increase library productivity and perhaps even
provide
some cost recovery...and I am not taking about coffee bars...I
wonder
if
there is anything that can be done from within the profession, or if
we
just need to sit back and wait for the changes to be forced from the
private sector. I guess I just don't see libraries and archives
taking
the initiative to change...and sadly, I believe a great deal of our
history stands to be lost in the process of waiting.
**Sadly, I see libraries ignoring (I use the word ignore since such
a
small percentage of ARL member's budgets is devoted to preservation)
what I see to be their greatest resource, their unique holdings.
**Yet, for me, the question remains, is there some way to
significantly
realign priorities within libraries? It seems to me that the changes
need to come from outside the preservation profession. The question
is,
what is the best marketing strategy and how do we go about mounting
our
advertizing campaign.
Marketing and PR are taken to be in opposition to public use and
non-profit, but the two can actually work had and hand quite nicely.
The
problem goes back to re-identifying what libraries and archives are,
what they could be, and what they should be. When I was a kid,
libraries
didn't have any direct competition beyond the local bookstore. But
now
with Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, Blockbuster and Virgin Megastores
competing in BOTH the brick and motar AND online space it's no
wonder
the public isn't flocking to libraries. I myself haven't found the
need
to go in years.
**I used to wonder if part of the problem had to do with the way
society
views the role of music. Our copyrights seem to deal with it as a
consumable. Yet I then consider how we have such things as a "Museum
of
Broadcasting." We seem to place some value on consumables. But do we
place more value on "I Love Lucy" than we do on Perry Como...or
"Omnibus" versus some of the more esoteric bits of our musical
heritage.
It would seem the answer is yes. Then the question comes to my mind,
will Lucy be as valued 100 years from now as say an Omnibus program
featuring Frank Lloyd Wright. I wonder...then, should the library
and
archive world be more concerned with what is not economically viable
and
leave that which has a potential for "cost recovery," to the private
sector.
We all have to remember that the populous doesn't even scratch the
surface beyond commercially availible music and film releases. I
enjoy
genres of music that have never had commercial success in this
country,
and most likely never will. I have literally thousands of records
that
could vanish without anyone understanding their ramifications. But I
understand, I'm in a niche, of a niche, of a niche. These recordings
connect the dots for a few very low key genres but do not register
on
the radar of the public scope.
Question: If we could look back in great detail on the times of any
ancient civilization, what would be more relivant: the tastes, and
likings of the masses (aka the Mozarts, Michalangelos, and
Shakespeares), or the concerns and pickings of the trivial ubergeeks
like ourselves (obsure no name, short lived, fringe artists)?
**Should an organization like EMI, donate (the objects and the
rights)
whatever holdings it sees as having no revenue potential to the
non-profit, public sector?
EMI UK, does have a non-profit historic trust, and donates a wide
variety of older reordings and technologies to it. I am currently
trying
to establish something here in the US along those lines, but cannot
discuss it any more than that.
**Karl
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Music from EMI
This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be
legally privileged. If you have
received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return
email and then delete it from
your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly
forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795
7000.
This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
Registered in England No 229231.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date:
5/16/2007 6:05 PM
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007 6:05 PM
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Music from EMI
This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have
received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete it from
your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of this email is strictly
forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.
This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
Registered in England No 229231.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 5/16/2007 6:05 PM