Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:02:08 -0500
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Richard Warren <richard.warren@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: arsclist Analog reformatting tape specs-Advice sought
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020109122059.03438d50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <sc3c4689.082@xxxxxxx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Dear Richard,
After long years of experience with most known formats of 1/4-inch
audiotape, I'd go with full-track mono for the sake of your and your
clients successors, but I can't quote any authorities other than archival
experience. You could look at the situation as allowing additional security
for the reel-to-reel copies (in full-track, if one tape degrades or gets
sticky "too soon", only one hour would be lost).
Best, Richard
At 12:33 PM 1/9/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Sorry for the cross posting...please ignore this if you get it more than
>once. I can never figure out where the best place(s) is/are to post these
>types of queries.
>
>I have been asked to propose the reformatting of a small but important
>collection of audio recordings. These are field oral histories made with
>presumably inexpensive portable recorders. I have not heard them yet.
>
>The originals are on C-120 cassettes. (pray for me if I get the project)
>
>The potential client has requested analog audio reels as well as CD-R red
>book audio copies. They are committed to making the reels and have the
>money to pay for them. I have already discussed whether or not they should
>do this and they want to do this to be safe.
>
>I see this as an audio-domain reformatting process that does not involve
>the computer.
>
>The CD-Rs will be provided in dual, single-wide jewel boxes, one CD-R per
>cassette side. This will provide easy tracking of the reformatted copies.
>
>The analog reel tapes pose a challenge. After research I've pretty much
>decided on Emtec 911. That was pretty easy.
>
>Certainly 7.5 in/s will be more than adequate to capture the fidelity of
>the original and allows one hour to be recorded on a 10.5 inch reel of
>tape, keeping 1:1 correspondence among the original, the CD-R, and the reel.
>
>I am torn between recording two reels, one for each side of the tape, in
>full-track mono (the original cassette tapes are currently assumed to be
>mono) and recording one reel per cassette in half-track mono. This latter
>option would mean that there are two programs on the tape, each going in
>opposite directions.
>
>After looking at the bob-and-weave of the 50+-year-old Magnetophonband
>tapes that I recently transferred, I feel better with full track mono. In
>fact, the Magnetophonband tapes sound as good as they do ONLY because they
>are full track and 30 in/s.
>
>I'm leaning towards the full-track mono, 2-reels-per-cassette solution,
>but does anyone think this is total overkill?
>
>Any thoughts or standards you could point me to would be appreciated.
>
>Oh and I think setting up the machine to record on Emtec 911 will be a
>piece of cake after setting it up for Magnetophonband Typ L!
>
>Thanks!
>
>Richard
>
>-
>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.