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

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

ARSC's position in the past has been that it neither has the administrative
nor financial structure to perform and interpert the tests required to make
the judgements we need.  It has deferred to the appropriate Audio
Engineering Society committees.

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: [ARSCLIST] Gold CDs


> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Oh well, a consensus
> > on what archival means when referring to media would be really nice and
I'm
> > certainly open to any suggestions on how we all could get such a
definition
> > into a published standard.  Any ideas?
>
> I am reminded of the "Audio preservation: a planning study" published by
> AAA back in 1988. As I recall, the conclusion was that there needs to be a
> mutually agreed upon preservation format that would be supported
> indefinitely, a notion which runs contrary to the fundamental notion of
> "planned obsolescence."
>
> For me, any notion of "archival" would not include any electromagnetic
> storage; a format supported with a technology that is public domain, and
> designed to last as long as stone and able to survive normal fluctuations
> in temperature and humidity. In short, you probably wouldn't want to have
> me on any preservation standards committee.
>
> Since we don't have a universally agreed upon notion of what duration of
> time would qualify as "archival," it would seem to me that we have a long
> way to go before we can hope to satisfy the recommendations of that AAA
> study.
>
> Looking at the ARSC committees...is not all of this a concern of the
> Technical Committee? Looking at its membership, it reads like a "Who's
> Who," of some of the best minds in preservation.
>
> Karl
>