Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum

[steven austin <stevena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tape or punchcards. Real old-school.

Then again, I think the reason we took digital to tape and disk was to
minimize the physical space required for archiving. Boxes of punchcards
as backup may well quadruple the floorspace of most collections.

Steven Austin
stevena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Watsky, Lance
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:18 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum

Hi Richard,

It would seem as though a way to achieve this would be to use the paper
tape that was is used in the early computer days, not individual sheets
of paper. The paper could then be created with archival paper
specifications.

Lance Watsky
Preservation & Media Specialist
The Georgia Archives
5800 Jonesboro Road
Morrow, GA 30260
678-364-3764 (phone)
678-364-3860 (fax)
lwatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.GeorgiaArchives.org




-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:02 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum


Hi, Steven,

Are you suggesting that we then OCR it back into the computer?

Let's see. 88,200 samples per second, 24 bits.

Lets, for the sake of argument print it as binary since we can't seem to
all agree on the ASCII/Windows/ANSI/etc representations of some of the
codes.

So, we have a page of 1s and 0s. We would have 2.2 million 1s and 0s per
second.
Even if we developed a true 8-bit glyph, we'd have 265,000 of them per
second. Let's figure dense printing: 120 characters per line and 80
lines
per page, or 9,600 glyphs per page. We'd need almost 28 pages per second
per channel. A stereo 40 minute recording would require over 132,000
pages.

Now, granted, that's at higher definition than an audio CD.

Doing the same numbers for a CD using the 8-bit glyph gives you 44,100
pages for the same 40 minute recording. (I didn't plan it to work out
that
way <smile>.

Cheers,

Richard

At 12:12 PM 1/11/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>Just a thought:
>
>Does anyone make digital audio copies from their archival sound
sources,
>then store the data as code printouts? Cards, paper, whatever?
>
>I would think with digital information technology, we don't really need
>to rely on tape or laser-encoded discs for archival storage when it
>would be so much more efficient to store the information as digital
>code, ready at any time to be translated through software into audio
>sound. A hard copy of the code would avoid the degradation that all
>storage media suffer and always offer a first-generation master of the
>original source recovery, where a CD-R or a tape would be subject to
the
>condition of the transport media.
>
>Know what I mean?
>
>Steven Austin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:43 AM
>To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum
>
>Hi, Kevin,
>
>Cal State Fullerton did a similar sized collection to two CD-Rs. Sharon
>Owen did a fantastic job with a little coaching and a lot of wonderful
>volunteers.
>
>I have been saying for the last four or five years that archiving to
>1/4-inch is a waste of money as it won't be playable by the time the
CDs
>won't be playable. Not from wearing out but from no machines being
>available.
>
>Now with tape essentially unavailable (unless Quantegy gets its act
>together), that is just one more good reason. I guess you could get
some
>of
>the JAI red-oxide tape from India <sigh>.
>
>All the best,
>
>Richard
>http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
>
>At 12:14 PM 1/11/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear Fellow Archivists,
> >
> >I have spent the last 7 years working with a private institutional
>audio
> >collection.  The collection of 7000 tapes is primarily cassette  with
>some
> >very early 1/4".  Up until now we have been reformatting to both CD-R
>and
> >full track 1/4" (7 1/2 ips).  I have been uncomfortable with the
>prospect
> >of putting all our historical eggs in one basket especially when that
> >basket (CD-R) hasn't got much of a longterm track record.  However,
>with
> >the recent closing of the Quantegy plant, and the future availability
>of
> >1/4" tape in question, I am re-evaluating my stance.  I suspect there
>have
> >been many discussions on this list about format choice for
preservation
> >projects such as ours but I am a recent subscriber and have not had
the
> >good fortune to gleen the views already expressed.
> >
> >So, my question is really a request for a quick survey.  How many of
>you
> >would vote in favor of using CD-R alone, for a collection like ours,
>with
> >multiple copies being generated for long term preservation and access
> >purposes?  (Considering that we would like not to have to do another
>round
> >of reformatting for at least 30 years.)
> >
> >Thank you in advance for your responses and any other comments you
care
>to
> >make.
> >Sincerely yours,
> >
> >Kevin Irelan
> >SYDA Foundation
> >Audio Archive