RE: [AV Media Matters] The esoteric edge

[msueiro@popmail.colum.edu]

Agreed. To quote Argentinian comic strip character Mafalda, "what's urgent
does not leave time for what's important."

Marcos Sueiro
Sound Specialist
312 344 7518
mailto:msueiro@popmail.colum.edu
Visit the CBMR webpage: http://www.cbmr.org

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ggib@loc.gov [mailto:ggib@loc.gov]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 1:13 PM
>To: AV-Media-Matters@topica.com
>Subject: Re: [AV Media Matters] The esoteric edge
>
>
>
>
>I am in total agreement in principal with Jim Lindner's comments on
>the problems of going alone for a archival system/media, but I believe
>we must look at what I see to be the two options available:
>
>EITHER
>
>1. continual migration (as long as our budgets allow, with the hope
>that funding isn't cut at a time when the manufacturing world decides
>to completely drop the 'old' technology and all support and parts
>related to it) of data to new formats and/or systems at unpredictable
>cycles (seemingly forced by the manufacturing world primarily to gain
>higher profits), all of which are high tech, requiring proprietary
>technology and equipment with little or no backward compatibility;
>
>OR
>
>2. adoption of a technology for long-term preservation that meets
>data quality needs and would be relatively simple to build from
>scratch, requiring no proprietary data or systems, by a reasonably
>intelligent person.
>
>The choices here are complicated by the quantities of machine based
>media now residing in collections.  For the 12,000 hours of audio
>recently sited, my guess is that --assuming minimal problems-- one
>would need 18,000 to 36,000 hours of staff time to transfer the
>collection, which runs out to something between 8.5 and 17 years of
>work!   Add to this the cost of new equipment and blank media
>(hopefully of reliable quality), as well as the facilities to house
>the operation and store the new media (and maybe keeping the original
>copy?) under recommended environmental conditions and with adequate
>security and the costs increase substantially.  If the collections
>involved are larger --say in the hundreds of thousands of hours, maybe
>even in the millions of hours-- the costs and logistics are
>staggering.
>
>Throw into this mix the uncertainties among almost all
>archivists/librarians whom I know of when their current holdings
>(analog or digital make no difference) must be copied to prevent loss
>of information and we have a real headache.
>
>Even if it is accepted that the self-monitoring-and-migrating digital
>archive comes about, I would bet that it will be at least another full
>media/equipment generation --and possibly as many as three or more--
>of manual data migration before such systems are readily available in
>all but the very largest collections, and the loading of those
>collections into such a system (assuming everything can be on- or
>near-line!) will take literally multi-centuries of work time!
>Forgetting the cost of equipment and space for same, the staff and
>media price for even one migration --much less the multiples that I
>believe are inevitable-- would seem to argue for some other
>alternative.
>
>Finally in this mix we have to consider the fact that the current
>market life of recordable media appears to be getting shorter and
>shorter (look at video formats and systems, for example), that the
>predictions of the media life expectancy and robustness are based
>entirely upon manufacturer's information whose accuracy or reliability
>are frequently in question, much less yet to be proved by an
>independent evaluation, and with data quality that is of questionable
>acceptability, VERSUS the practicality of a media (grooved analog
>discs for audio, for example) that have demonstrated in real-life
>cases that they last a hundred years or more, with data quality of an
>clear and understood level, and with established and proven standards,
>plus the fact that it can be played on relatively simple equipment
>which can be built --or even reinvented, if necessary-- from scratch
>without having an advanced  degree in electronics AND access to
>proprietary equipment and data, and the metal-part suggestion acquires
>ever greater enticement to me.
>
>I don't know if the 2d option is the answer for this or not.
>Regardless, the
>prospect of trying to find funds for even one --much less repeated--
>migration of the various data in our respective collections to media
>and systems simply because the manufacturer has abandoned the old is
>very, very frustrating.  Hopefully there are other alternatives which
>can be found.
>
>Gerry Gibson
>
>>>> Jim Lindner <jim@vidipax.com> 04/20 2:15 AM >>>
>Perhaps it is NAB exhaustion that has framed this comment, and
>perhaps
>it is seeing in just a few hours many new vendors and technologies...
>
>BUT I have some major reservations about using esoteric solutions for
>
>archival applications - even if the desired goal is "perpetuity".
>While
>it is interesting to conjure schemes for the "ultimate preservation
>format" as an academic exercise - I think that really considering
>DOING
>it is entirely another matter.  Time and time again people in the
>archival community have learned with great pain what it is like to
>have
>an unsupported format.  Whether it is an early audio format or a more
>
>recent video format from a vendor that went out of business, it is
>clear
>that obscure or one off formats, while well intentioned, become a
>preservation nightmare in a relatively short period of time.
>
>Quite some time ago I read Carl Sagan's book about the Voyager disk
>and
>what was involved in providing essentially a Rosetta stone to playing
>
>back this disk - potentially from another civilization or
>intelligence
>many light years from now. In this case the goal was indeed
>preservation
>for perpetuity - but considering such a venture for more earthly use
>is
>quite another story.  One could make a very strong argument that for
>
>archival records to exist (of whatever type) they need to have a
>mechanism for access - because access and preservation are two
>different
>aspects of the ultimate survival of any record or object.  One
>without
>the other is usually a problem waiting to happen. Preserving anything
>
>that requires a unique process or technology - no matter how "simple"
>
>for access is in my opinion a plan that is doomed.
>
>While using metal stampers is an interesting idea, as a practical
>matter, doing this process would make an institution totally alone
>with
>a unique project that would require a unique technology for access. A
>
>machine population of 1 if you will.  While this may seem like a good
>
>idea now - consider what it will mean for someone 50 years from now.
>
>Who exactly is going to support this format that you are essentially
>
>inventing and how will it be possible to execute the system necessary
>to
>access the records.  It is hard enough supporting formats that had
>hundreds or thousands of machines  sold during the window of the
>format
>availability, but in this scenario you are creating a unique format
>with
>the installed base of one system.  Consider the technological effort
>
>that will be necessary to play these unique format items - and also
>consider the cost of access in human terms as well as technical
>terms.
>Would your institution seriously consider doing the work necessary to
>
>access such an object if you had one NOW that had been preserved in a
>
>similarly unique way 100 years ago? Think about it! VERY few would -
>
>think of the resources required -  the project would just go to the
>back
>burner to be considered some other time when there would be less
>pressing matters  - and of course those days NEVER happen.
>
>No, I think that you need to consider human nature a bit and consider
>
>the real risk of being TOTALLY alone with a unique format.  I think
>that
>it is a very bad idea - and understand I am a person with a company
>whose business it is to support obsolete formats!
>
>jim lindner
>
>Jim Lindner
>VidiPax
>The Full Service Magnetic Media Restoration Company
>See our Web Site at www.vidipax.com
>212-563-1999 ext. 102