Re: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, etc.

To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, etc.
From: Aaron Levinson <aaron.levinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:50:36 -0400
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@loc.gov>
In-reply-to: <yam10849.1003.156787808@smtp.ntlworld.com>
List-archive: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ARSCLIST>
List-help: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ARSCLIST>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV?body=INFO ARSCLIST>
List-owner: <mailto:ARSCLIST-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
List-subscribe: <mailto:ARSCLIST-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ARSCLIST-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Message-id: <46EDA52C.4020607@verizon.net>
References: <yam10849.1003.156787808@smtp.ntlworld.com>
Reply-to: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)

Another possible quick and dirty solution, taking a page out of the Hatto controversy itself, is to digitize the performance in question and load it into iTunes and allow the CDDB to compare track lengths. That is how CHARM inadvertently got independent and unsolicited confirmation of their findings.

Aaron

Don Cox wrote:

On 15/09/07, Steven Smolian wrote:

I really wish there was some way to learn more about these records.
MOST OF THIS RERSEARCH HAS TO BE DONE FROM THE BOTTOM-UP. THAT INCLUDES USING TWIN TURNTABLES AND TRYING TO SYNCHRONIZE POSSIBLE PERFORMANCES WITH THE ONE IN QUESTION.
Isn't it much easier to digitise the records and compare waveforms in an audio mixer program?

Regards

References:
- Re: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, etc.
  - From: Don Cox

Prev by Date: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, and a question
Next by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, and a question
Previous by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, etc.
Next by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, etc.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Table of Contents]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Hatto, etc.

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]