From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Hello all,
there has just been a very interesting and expansive exchange of views
concerning the mechanisms of baking on the ARSCLIST (go for subject line
'revisiting tape bakers' - it had not strayed when I started writing
this),
and the latest comment by an experienced person - Lou Judson - says:
In fact, we are looking for some way to dispose of the tapes after
transfer, as they are simply not archivable except as voluminous
boxes of possibly sentimental but otherwise unusable materials!
(sorry, Lou, for quoting partly out of context).
As the first person to express clearly in archival circles the distinction
between primary (intended) and secondary (ancillary) information in an
artefact I need to introduce a bit of philosophy, and I am sorry, because
many people are put off by that. However it may be a skeleton to work from
in
a given situation. And also please bear in mind that my own research has
digged deepest into mechanical media (with films coming next). I should
note
that some have believed that when I said "secondary" information it
relates
to label, cover, and other written information on a tape box - this is
obviously included, but it would limit the concept too much if not
_everything_ were included that contributes to the total information
content
of the artefact. At the end I bring two references.
In the tapes we are discussing, the primary information is the sonic
content
that it was intended should be retrievable. The primary information may
only
be retrieved if the replay process makes maximum use of the secondary
information. The secondary information in this connection relates to
1) the type of tape, its constituents,
2) the footprint of the recording head,
3) any non-intended signals co-recorded with the intended signal. All of
this
secondary information is present on any piece of tape.
Speed goes without saying.
How has the secondary information been used in the history of
re-recording?
The Columbia Oral History project in the late 1950s and early 1960s used
the
tapes to record interviews, these were transcribed, and the tapes reused.
Edward Tatnall Canby deplored this vociferously in Audio Magazine in the
1970s. No use of secondary information.
A number of broadcast archives from the 1960s-90s had programmes of re-
recording cyclically, perhaps on a 7-year cycle. The in-house standards
were
such that there was an inherent trust in correct reproduction of the
tapes,
and secondary information was not used consciously.
In the late 1990s a consciousness sprang up in archive and re-recording
circles that a more precise knowledge of tape heads than mere "mono or
stereo" was needed, and we see the professional transfer establishments
provide a range of heads to cater for the innumerable recording formats
and
maladjustments. Also, the importance of the conforming to whatever azimuth
there is on the tape. The secondary information is being used to some
degree.
This is also the case when a decision is made on the handling of the tape
by
the machines, dependent on the type (triacetate, polyester-terephthalate),
as
well as any treatment before replay.
We have seen Plangent Processes use the HF bias co-recorded with the
intended
signal to obtain a much improved temporal stability of the intended
signal.
Some of the best investigated tapes from a forensic viewpoint were the
Nixon
Watergate tapes. All tapes can be subjected to such analyses, but we need
the
tapes.
So, using baking and making the last ever transfer from a tape means that
we
have an intended signal that is as good as our knowledge today. If we use
the
original tapes for landfill we are discarding a lot of information. This
must
be a conscious decision, and almost everything is better than what came
out
of the Columbia Oral History project. We shall most likely never be able
to
afford to make use of any more of the ancillary information - sort of
'diminishing returns'. For this practical reason I believe it is bordering
on
hypocrisy to claim that "although we make a digital transfer, we aim to
preserve the original" and to have that as a goal in internationally
accepted
recommendations. There are parallels to switching off the life support
system
of a terminal patient - the moral issues are the same, but the subject is
not
a human being. In the "tape world" the re-use of organs would be the
re-use
of hubs and reels to re-house more fortunate tapes.
I have written about the basic considerations when looking at artefacts as
the most concentrated collection of information; the two main references
are:
Brock-Nannestad, George: "Applying the Concept of Operational Conservation
Theory to Problems of Audio Restoration and Archiving Practice", AES
Preprint
No. 4612, 103nd Convention 1997 September 26-29, New York.
(the concept is introduced as unifying approaches in Conservation Theory
in
order to evaluate proposed preservation policies)
This text is well worth the $20 that it costs to non-members of the AES.
The other one is free and available in a pdf-version identical in content
to
the original printed publication:
Brock-Nannestad, George: "The Rationale Behind Operational Conservation
Theory", in `Conservation without limits - IIC Nordic Group XV Congress´,
Ed.
R. Koskivirta, Helsinki 23-26 August, 2000, pp. 21-33.
(the information content and structure in an object is both of a
scientific
and of a perception nature. The balance between the two types changes over
the service life of the object. Systematic information analysis provides a
firm background for responsible decisions on preservation and restoration)
Available from:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/brock-nannestad/operational-
conservation-theory.pdf - no newline!! copy-and-paste your way
The idea of preserving the originals would only be viable if we can
guarantee
that the use of a particular approach to treatment as a precursor for a
re-
recording will at the same time assure that we can subsequently store the
originals with minimal costs in respect of climatic control. I do think
that
the step of re-recording is indispensable, although a case for not doing
that
until the intended signal is requested may be made. But the access to the
content by having it transferred to a digital system is so much improved
by
the re-recording that no indexing system can compete. Based on such
realizations I feel that the minimum requirement should be: "ANY transfer
is
better than NO transfer". The 'lemma' to this is: "better 100 hours of
poor
transfers than one hour of a perfect transfer". This is heretical, I know!
But what is a "poor" transfer? That is the minimum quality that will stand
up
in court. Worse than that is worthless. And it is unethical, because it
contains lies about the intended content.
So, on this forensic note,
kind regards,