Re: [AV Media Matters] cassette tape shelf life?

[lists.rlhess@mindspring.com]

At 07:39 PM 11/25/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>>Get the important stuff transferred off to CDR while you still have
access
>>to an excellent playback machine. Use gold CDRs.
>
>While that would be good for an access copy, wouldn't a 1/4" analog tape
>be a safer bet -- that is, less likely to suffer from a catastrophic
>digital data loss?

As you stated below, the 1/4" analog copy would be great, but there is a
huge cost associated with it. My contention about good-quality reproducers
not being available within 10-15 years pertains even more to analog 1/4
inch reel than cassette. They are big, expensive, require maintenance and
alignment. Hopefully most of us on this list understand these things, but
my kids look in astonishment at LPs and reel tapes. None of their friends
have ever seen these things.

Of course our goals may be different. If a 7.5 ips analog copy is good for
your needs, then that might be the way to go. I'm dealing with 15 and 30
ips music masters that would suffer more by an analog generation than by
digitizing.

Interesting aside...One of the albums I've worked on (and just re-released)
was the only one that had ever previously been released on CD. I chose to
take the original master tapes and remaster the CD. The artist and I both
thought that the 10-year-later CD remaster sounded better than the original
CD release.

So that says good things about one or more of the following:
--the short-term longevity of magnetic media
--my current reel tape reproducer (a Sony APR5003V)
--my current A-D converters (a Panasonic SV3800 DAT recorder)
--my mastering processes (Sek'd Samplitude 2496)
--the manufacturing of the glass master, etc.

And it may imply some bad things about something in the previous chain:
--the old tape reproducer or its alignment
--the old A-D converters
--the old mastering processes
--the old manufacturing of the glass master, etc.

These chains are complex and in an analog chain each piece can introduce
anomalies that are tweakable. I loved analog, but for the most part I've
embraced the careful application of digital.

>It was a tragedy when 3M decided
>that their magnetic recording products division wasn't making enough of a
>profit, and killed it off.  I always thought that their products were
>better than Ampex and others.

I had substantial QC problems in the early '70's with 3M which I was using
for live concert recordings. I swtiched to Maxell then and never looked
back. I only switched (sadly) to Ampex for several projects at the end
because my source of Maxell reel tape dried up.

>Of course, probably the best archival format for audio would be some sort
>of uncompressed digital optical recording (with perhaps an analog safety
>as well?) on polyester-based motion picture film. A silver image on
>polyesterfilm, stored properly, should be good for well over 100 years.
>But I doubt this will ever happen.  Too expensive.

The problem is maintaining reproduction equipment capable of playing this
format. Have you tried to find an F1 decoder? It's wait for one to show up
on e-Bay!

>It's always scary when new cheap technologies become the saviour --
>witness the horrors of microfilm, and subsequent loss of data -- in the
>world of libraries and newspaper archiving, as detailed in The New Yorker
>a couple of months back.

Well, I believe several manufacturers are doing accelerated life testing on
their CDR media. Mitsui and others have made long-term claims. Any format
is a risk, but one that is pervasive is probably less of a risk than an
arcane format that required complex reproduction equipment.

Anyway, that's my two cents. It's a balancing act for all of us. The stuff
I care about saving the most at the moment has gotten made into
manufactured CDs and sold and distributed worldwide. Of course, I've got to
sell a bunch of copies to pay for it, and that's not practical for most
archival historical projects, but I've been the impetus to get some stuff
that I've restored remastered and re-released. It's not making money, but
it's almost self-sustaining (if I don't count the value of my time).

Cheers,

Richard