Re: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24/09/04, H. Duane Goldman wrote:
> 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?

Isn't the question the preservation of recordings which are digital in
the first place? Or where only a digital copy survives.


> 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.

I don't think we should get into an argument about the sound quality of
CD versus vinyl. The question is how to preserve whichever you have.

However, the great strength of digital formats is the ease of copying -
so a central archive may hold the original and many others can hold (and
will wish to preserve) digital copies. If the original is fragile (for
example a lacquer) it may not be safe to play it more than once or twice
a century.

Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx