Re: arsclist cd roms - which are closest to archival quality?

["Bernd Wichert" <b_wichert@xxxxxx>]

Dear George,
why don't you contact the Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR), Cologne/Germany,
Sound Archive
Section. Perhaps they can help you with your work.
They are having their complete archive transfered onto CD by a special firm.
Kind regards
Bernard Wichert
Germany

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: arsclist cd roms - which are closest to archival quality?


> Date sent:      Sun, 17 Jun 2001 04:56:24 -0500 (EST)
> From:           "M. Sam Cronk" <scronk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:             ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:        arsclist cd roms - which are closest to archival quality?
> Send reply to:  ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dear Sam,
>
> I am certain that the question has been asked many times, but the
> answer keeps changing in dependence on what the suppliers will
> provide us with.
>
> >
> > I apologize in advance if this question has been asked many times.
> > I'm working for a small but dynamic archives.  We create both analog
> > and digital "archival"  copies of original recordings to
> > preserve/archive them and make their contents available for multiple
> > use by scholars and the communities with whom we work.
> >
> ----- Well, it would be interesting to be told what you consider to be
> archival, i.e.  what you mean by the word "archival". Also, it would
> be of general interest to learn what kind of analog archival copies
> you make and on which equipment and carriers.
>
> > My question: which cd rom "standards" are closest to archival quality?
> > PhthaloCyanine gold-reflective surface?  Are those with blue-dye
> > reflective surface now comparable? We need to make a rather large
> > purchase and a good long term decision.  Of course, we are not relying
> > solely on cd r technology to back up/store our resources.
>
> ----- One thing that must be hammered home is that today digital
> does not in itself mean "archival". It is not the medium that is
> digital, it is the system comprising the replay equipment (provided
> we say "digitise now, replay later)". Going digital is a certain
> request in a number of years' time for transfer from the present
> medium to a different medium, going from one coding system to
> another (all of which will hopefully be completely transparent, i.e.
> there will be no difference between the signal obtained during
> replay on today's equipment and the signal obtained by replaying
> the transferred digital information on future equipment).
>
> It is *only* through the unending transfer that the archival quality is
> obtained. The situation that we had in analog, that it would be
> possible to find a stash after 50 years of negligence and to replay
> the recordings is quite unlikely once the transfer to digital has been
> made. I consider that to be an irreversible coding that can only be
> made useful if it is constantly nursed. If the nursing can be
> performed automatically it is much cheaper than labor, but the
> initial investment is heavy. Miss a generation of transfer, and
> everything is lost.
>
> In a discussion a number of years ago the Swedish national sound
> archive presented the thought that analog and digital preservation
> copies should be made in parallel, and that subsequent to every
> digital change of generation a further analog copy was made. This
> would mean that there would always be an analog copy (equivalent
> to a first generation copy, which compared to digital must be
> considered reasonably un-coded) that may survive a period of
> nursing negligence. This is expensive, sort of "belts and braces",
> but theoretically very sound.
>
> I think that there are two major concerns in preserving what we
> have today: the ensuring that the transfers from the present digital
> system to future digital systems occurs in a timely fashion, and - if
> what we have is in an analog form today - that the transfer to digital
> is done with as much consciousness about the total information
> content as possible (or that we make a conscious exclusion of
> some of the secondary information).
>
> Oh, the burden on archivists' shoulders!
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George Brock-Nannestad
> Preservation Tactics
> -
> For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> >from the author of the post.
>