Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs

[Sara Velez <svelez@xxxxxxxx>]

Bravo, Duane, I could not agree more with your sentiments. I still love the
warmth and resonance of my old 78s and LPs, pops, clicks and all. And
they're still around to tell their stories.  Realistically, though, the
preservation and access needs of the 21th century, are driving us further
into the digital sound domain. If we offer our public the choice of
listening to an analog original or the digital reissue, probably 98% or
more, will choose the digital copy because of its ease of access, and their
ability to control the playback and find and listen to certain tracks over
and over again. In fact, we frequently have to put certain tracks in a
'repeat mode' for our public. To them, the ease of access is more important
than the quality of the sound. Of course, you will always have the
connoisseurs including collectors, performers and historians, who like to
study the original analog recordings and revel in their warmer tones.

With regard to digital audio preservation, archives are being driven now to
preserve fragile sound formats in digital files, because the analog tape
stock and machines that were previously used for preservation purposes are
dying out.

Hope I haven't rambled on for too long. The ARSC Discussion List is
definitely one of my favorite lists because of the expertise, passion and
colleaguial nature, of its members.

Best,

Sara Velez
Rodgers & Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound
New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. Duane Goldman" <thedoctor@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs


> 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
>