From: Parker Dinkins <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] BWF RF64
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:57:26 -0500
on 9/6/07 9:51 AM US/Central, John Spencer at js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
> Regarding interchange vs. audio preservation, my personal view is
> that in a digital environment, pervasiveness and open standards of
> digital preservation file formats should be the primary goal.
> Interchange between platforms is an additional side benefit.
John -
Going back to the early 1990s, one of the problems with archival
re-recording (as audio preservation was then called), was the
implementation
of any standard. For example, during that period the professional audio
community on CompuServe would engage in long discussions about what was the
appropriate destination format for their institutional clients.
In most cases, the larger clients had already done the research and they
knew exactly what they wanted - 1/4" open reel tape - as documented in the
US National Archives procedures manual.
Among many audio professionals, open reel tape was openly derided as being
functionally equivalent to using stone knives, etc., and some in the pro
audio community proposed DAT media instead.
The real problem was that many audio professionals had tossed their open
reel equipment, or wanted to do so shortly. They cited present and future
interchange issues.
But the institutions had the gold, and they made the rules (Golden Rule).
Of
course there is a certain irony to using 1/4" open reel tape, given the
problems with sticky shed syndrome.
Now fast-forward to today. Many governmental agencies (and the Grammy
Foundation) have been actively funding audio preservation projects. In my
mind, the Grammy Foundation Basic Methodology for Preserving, Transferring
and Archiving Recorded Media is pretty much the prevailing standard - for
similar gold vs. rules reasons.
So, I really don't see how today's perception of interchange issues should
override professional audio preservation standards - otherwise wouldn't
much
of the 1990s era audio be on DAT media today?
To me, the real value of the Grammy preservation methodology is the fairly
explicit data backup descriptions. The current methodology provides some
peace of mind in an area which has potential professional liability.
Parker
--
Parker Dinkins
MasterDigital Corporation
Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
http://masterdigital.com