[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs
I think Duane raises a very valid point…
But…
We have to make a distinction between Data and Audio CD/DVD.
We all know you can store BWF as data and maintain high resolution.
We at Xepa Digital will never suggest archiving at less than 96/24, and for
stereo or mono we suggest 192/24 or DSD stored on “archival” quality media
with a “reference” copy on Audio CD.
I’ll forward this thread to our Video Director and try to have him comment
on the physical media issue. He used to be the CD/DVD expert for WB
duplication and recently left Technicolor as the chief International Video
Engineer, dealing with many issues related to media integrity and
manufacturing.
We need to maintain the highest quality possible for “ease of” playback as
well as keeping the aural integrity of all our historical assets. I believe
that is why all of us are in the business of preserving audio (and in our
case also video) assets.
Technology is our “friend” as long as we use it with respect and acknowledge
the need for “good ears”.
Sincerely,
Claus
A new addition to the ARSCLIST…
Claus Trelby
Managing Engineer/Partner
XEPA Digital
1137 Branchton Road, 19-N-3
Boyers, PA 16020-0137
www.xepadigital.com
ctrelby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P:724-794-3686
F:724-794-3292
C:805-490-1730
Perhaps I've come into this thread to late, but does sound quality have a
place in these assessments? Is a digital copy of an analog recording now
considered equal to the original by this group? Have you traded sound
quality for convenience? Have you lost touch with the original recording or
don't care about the performance but simply want to claim that you have a
"copy" of the work?
Is this the direction that sound archives are seeking? if so its a sad day
indeed!!! Of all the media presented in this thread, vinyl & shellac
recordings offer superior sound quality & longevity than CD/DVDs or tape,
so just what is the end point of your archives? Is it to preserve second
class sound for the sake of convenience? Do any of you actually care about
the sound of your holdings or isjust your ability to make a list of your
digital recordings all that matters?
If I'm having a bad day & missed the point then please forgive the tirade,
but I can't help but see a pattern that has little to due with a reference
to the quality of the sound of the original recording. If you actually
hear typical digital recordings as equal to their analog originals, then it
is fair to say that indeed a very sad time has been reached.
Duane Goldman
At 06:58 PM 9/24/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Tape recorders require threading, cleaning, demagging, etc. a lot more than
>cleaning the lens in a CD player. It takes fare less skill to play a cd
>than a reel-to reel, or even an LP.
>
>A factor in my own longeivity analysis of media predictions concerning the
>players is, do the reproducers meet the hock-shop test, i.e., are they
>around cheap? Are they easy to fix? How likely is it that new ones (many
>in bubble pack) are available on eBay? Are likely to continue to be
>available 10 years later as used and playing devices? Can perform where
>there is no elecrical source? The CD wins, hands down. The cassette comes
>in second.
>
>Steve Smolian
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
>To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs
>
>
> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> >
> > Joe Iraci wrote in this discussion (but he is not the only one)
> > >
> > > Storage and handling, of course are major elements in any longevity
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > "For example, if there were standards by which the term "archival" was
> > > defined and enforced,
> > > then one or more lines of blanks labelled "archival" could be used."
> > >
> > > Archival is a tricky word and can mean different things to different
> > > people.
> >
> > I would say that it is system longevity, not just carrier longevity that
>is
> > the issue. I think I have heard rumors that tape reproducers are not so
> > common any more. What makes any of you think that anybody is seriously
> > interested in providing CD-compatible players in the long term future?
Re-
> > selling the repertoire is much more profitable and archives will not be
>able
> > to afford anything that is not mass produced. You will dance to the tune
>of
> > manufacturers.
> >
> > So, once you have your information in digital form, refresh or migrate,
do
> > not store. Storage per se is death of information, because you will not
be
> > able to get at it. It is a bit like living matter: the individual does
not
> > survive, but the genes do. Only we need clones.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > George
> >
------
h. duane goldman, ph.d. | P.O. Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141
lagniappe chem. ltd. | (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
"for the sound you thought you bought" | http://discdoc.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.749 / Virus Database: 501 - Release Date: 9/1/2004