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

[Kent Nance <knance@bellsouth.net>]

Richard - What you say makes sense, and re-mastered CD are sometimes not
much better than the original recordings. I've been working on restoring
some of Rachmaninoff's recordings and I'm finding what sounds like lathe
or cutting noise on both the LPs and the CDs. I haven't been really
successful in getting rid of it. It seems to be centered at about 150 Hz
and is very broad band. Have you any goods words and suggestions about
this sort of problem. I've tried just about every filter known to man
without real success.

lists.rlhess@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
>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
>