Re: [ARSCLIST] electronic reading of physical media, was: Preservation policy question

[stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Another thought I had, and one which I had hoped to explore a bit on my
> own...before our new boss had other ideas...We have a large CT scanner on
> campus. I wondered if it would be worthwhile to do a scan of a disc and,
> take the digital image and clean it up. We also have a way of creating a
> duplicate from the information. While it is a long and costly process, it
> would be possible, assuming enough of the disc was not worn, to create a
> "virgin" copy.
>
> Similarly, considering how the characteristics of each of the various
> acoustic players, could not one image the horn
> of a player and couple that with information on the density of
> the material, and determine a likely sense of what it would be like to
> create a virtual duplication of an Edison Disc being played on an Edison
> machine. I should add, the first time I heard an edison disc played on a
> vintage edison machine (in excellent condition) was a revelation.
>
> Of course, the weak link, from my perspective, still being speakers, which
> do not vibrate in the same way as instruments...I am reminded of a
> fascinating visit I had about two weeks ago with a research scientist on
> our faculty. He has worked for 40 years with microbial cellulose. One
> application we discussed was the use of the material for audio playback.
> He has already been working with Sony. They have developed a pair of
> headphones...cost, about $2,500. I thought of a cellulose wall of sound,
> not unlike the idea of a large electrostatic speaker system, with the
> difference being that the cellulose would not break up like mylar when it
> came to handling the bass frequencies...and continuing the day
> dreaming...having recordings where each instrument would have its own
> microphone and the reproduction characteristics of the various part of the
> cellulose being adjusted to replicate the manner of the original vibrating
> medium...eg, string and sound board of a violin. But then, why go to the
> trouble when most people are happy with an MP3.
>
> And speaking of fantasies...for me, there is the question of
> the "final solution." What can we hope for in terms a universally
> supported information storage format that would be as long lasting as
> stone.
>
> I also wonder about file formats. Do we all truly believe that the WAV
> file format will be with us 50 years from now?
>
Does a .wav file save the actual signal level for each interval...
or is this transformed by an algorithm into values than can then
be "un-transformed" by performing the opposite action on the
saved data? If the former, the format is nore-or-less permanent
(assuming we still have the technology to read saved digital
files, which as hardly a given!). If the latter, the useful
life of the file format is the length of time for which the
algorithm can be accessed.

As far as "as long lasting as stone" it appears that may not
be anywhere near the infinite time span assumed by "carved in
stone!" There are many 19th century, even early 20th, tombstones
that have been eroded into illegibility by decades of exposure
to the elements.

One approach to sound reproduction (for a human audience)
might be to identify the characteristics of the signal
which the applicable nerves transmit to the brain...and
then figure out a way to create a similar signal and
somehow feed that into the nevers in question.

Finally, judging from my records, it appears that the
closest thing to an eternal archive might be shellac
discs...I have records over a century old that play at
least as well as they ever did, and show no signs of
any age-related deterioration (and I wish that were
true of ME!)...

Steven C. Barr