Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Uh-oh! Old CDs breaking down - Check your archives.
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Ty Ford
Mar 29, 2012, 12:59:26 PM3/29/12
to
The question was always how long would a CD remain in tact. How long would it
play properly?
In the last two months I have reached for SFX CD sold by Aircraft and Century
21, only to hear glitches within each track. I acquired these CDs sometime
between the mid 1980s to 1990. So that's about 25 years, maybe slightly more.
These are CD not CD-R. They are kept in my air conditioned studio. They are
not scratched.
Mfgrs are DISCOVERY SYSTEMS AND LASER VIDEO
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
play properly?
In the last two months I have reached for SFX CD sold by Aircraft and Century
21, only to hear glitches within each track. I acquired these CDs sometime
between the mid 1980s to 1990. So that's about 25 years, maybe slightly more.
These are CD not CD-R. They are kept in my air conditioned studio. They are
not scratched.
Mfgrs are DISCOVERY SYSTEMS AND LASER VIDEO
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
William Sommerwerck
Mar 29, 2012, 1:08:36 PM3/29/12
to
IN THEORY, a CD should provide "pure, perfect sound forever". I've never
seen one fail that wasn't bad out of the box, or had some obvious physical
problem.
The only obvious source of breakdown (other than physical abuse) is
oxidation of the aluminum coating. Check for scratches (etc) on the title
side.
Most plastics are pretty stable. The polycarbonate CDs are made of should
outlast the pyramids, I think. The only serious threat is proton decay (~
10^30 years).
seen one fail that wasn't bad out of the box, or had some obvious physical
problem.
The only obvious source of breakdown (other than physical abuse) is
oxidation of the aluminum coating. Check for scratches (etc) on the title
side.
Most plastics are pretty stable. The polycarbonate CDs are made of should
outlast the pyramids, I think. The only serious threat is proton decay (~
10^30 years).
Scott Dorsey
Mar 29, 2012, 1:13:22 PM3/29/12
to
Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The question was always how long would a CD remain in tact. How long would it
>play properly?
>
>In the last two months I have reached for SFX CD sold by Aircraft and Century
>21, only to hear glitches within each track. I acquired these CDs sometime
>between the mid 1980s to 1990. So that's about 25 years, maybe slightly more.
So were they made at the PDO plant? The lettering on the inside will tell you.
>The question was always how long would a CD remain in tact. How long would it
>play properly?
>
>In the last two months I have reached for SFX CD sold by Aircraft and Century
>21, only to hear glitches within each track. I acquired these CDs sometime
>between the mid 1980s to 1990. So that's about 25 years, maybe slightly more.
If you shine a flashlight through them, do you see pinholes?
Is the plastic visibly yellowed?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Peter Larsen
Mar 29, 2012, 2:01:00 PM3/29/12
to
Ty Ford wrote:
> The question was always how long would a CD remain in tact. How long
> would it play properly?
Do not trust any CD, rip them on arrival. CD's are a transport media, not a
> The question was always how long would a CD remain in tact. How long
> would it play properly?
storage media.
I've been ripping many to get listened to what's on them, and found that 1
to 2 percent required ripping with Feurio because it is uniquely good at
getting sound off of poor CD's. Age does not seem to be a parameter - I've
found amazing levels of C2 errors on brand new cd's, but problems are
marginally worse the more there's on them.
> Ty Ford
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Soundhaspriority
Mar 29, 2012, 2:10:23 PM3/29/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jl24sm$qde$1...@dont-email.me...
through the play-side to the aluminum, if it doesn't get through the
"laquer" first.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
William Sommerwerck
Mar 29, 2012, 2:31:11 PM3/29/12
to
> The fly [in the ointment} is, polycarbonate absorbs water.
So CDs left in humid environments are likely to slowly "rot"? That's
interesting.
> The water goes straight through the play-side to the
> aluminum, if it doesn't get through the "lacquer" first.
So CDs left in humid environments are likely to slowly "rot"? That's
interesting.
Ron Capik
Mar 29, 2012, 2:30:10 PM3/29/12
to
< http://www.ajol.info/index.php/esarjo/article/viewFile/30952/23224 >
I found this example interesting:
" [...] a small cellulose nitrate button sealed in a polyethylene bag
was left lying on a compact disk, still sealed in its original polyethylene
wrapping. After several months, emissions from the button had
passed through both layers of polyethylene and right through the
polycarbonate - which is also a poor vapour barrier - destroying a
large patch of the aluminium coating on the far side of the disk. "
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
geoff
Mar 29, 2012, 3:43:40 PM3/29/12
to
geoff
Mike Rivers
Mar 29, 2012, 3:51:38 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 2:30 PM, Ron Capik wrote:
> " [...] a small cellulose nitrate button sealed in a
> polyethylene bag was left lying on a compact disk, still
> sealed in its original polyethylene wrapping. After
> several months, emissions from the button had passed
> through both layers of polyethylene and right through
> the polycarbonate - which is also a poor vapour barrier -
> destroying a large patch of the aluminium coating on the
> far side of the disk. "
So the moral of this story is that if you lose your buttons,
> " [...] a small cellulose nitrate button sealed in a
> polyethylene bag was left lying on a compact disk, still
> sealed in its original polyethylene wrapping. After
> several months, emissions from the button had passed
> through both layers of polyethylene and right through
> the polycarbonate - which is also a poor vapour barrier -
> destroying a large patch of the aluminium coating on the
> far side of the disk. "
check your CD library first. ;)
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Peter A. Stoll
Mar 29, 2012, 4:40:16 PM3/29/12
to
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>The question was always how long would a CD remain in tact. How long would it
>>play properly?
>>
>So were they made at the PDO plant? The lettering on the inside will tell you.
<snip>
>Is the plastic visibly yellowed?
>--scott
In a collection of just a few hundred CDs, my preference for classical music and period
>--scott
of most active purchase got me no fewer than six "bronze" CDs of the PDO flavor.
Before sending them off for attempted replacement a few years ago, I took this
photograph, which might give a hint both of what these look like and how varied the
look can be from sample to sample.
http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/PeterAStoll/problems/CDs/Bronze/?
action=view¤t=six_bronze_0.jpg
At the time the photo was taken, the music playback impact on this set varied from
barely detectable to catastrophic to the point of not being able to maintain time
advance.
I think the party line is that something amiss (for years) in the production process at this
factory made the plastic more permeable than usual, thus allowing a path for the
undesirable reactive components of inks and such which are always present to find
their way to the reflective layer and damage it.
My pessimistic view is that we won't know how much less permeable the plastic at
other factories is (and was) for years. As a former reliability guy (in semiconductors), I
actually do believe that accelerated testing for this specific mechanism (and other
individual highly specific mechanisms) is readily feasible. But I doubt the owners will
both perform appropriate tests and let us know the results.
Soundhaspriority
Mar 29, 2012, 4:56:16 PM3/29/12
to
news:jl29nh$oqb$1...@dont-email.me...
Yes, years ago, one CD owner's related lament from Singapore may have been
the first widely read story. Singapore is a place contradictions: a 21st
century high tech society on the edge of the jungle, with perpetually
condensing humidity. His collection mostly disintegrated.
Ron's story highlights that most plastics are porous at the molecular level.
Many plastics absorb 1 - 2% of water by weight, after which they stabilize.
Epoxies are least permeable, but not enough; manufacture of semiconductors
with epoxy casings was not possible until a process was developed to
passivate the chips/dies before they were encapsulated.
Glass is the gold standard of hermetic enclosures, but store a
photomultiplier next to a slightly leaking tank of helium and the
photomultiplier is ruined -- the helium goes right through the glass.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
the first widely read story. Singapore is a place contradictions: a 21st
century high tech society on the edge of the jungle, with perpetually
condensing humidity. His collection mostly disintegrated.
Ron's story highlights that most plastics are porous at the molecular level.
Many plastics absorb 1 - 2% of water by weight, after which they stabilize.
Epoxies are least permeable, but not enough; manufacture of semiconductors
with epoxy casings was not possible until a process was developed to
passivate the chips/dies before they were encapsulated.
Glass is the gold standard of hermetic enclosures, but store a
photomultiplier next to a slightly leaking tank of helium and the
photomultiplier is ruined -- the helium goes right through the glass.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Adrian Tuddenham
Mar 29, 2012, 4:56:32 PM3/29/12
to
Ron Capik <r.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
been banned as a plastic for domestic articles in the U.K. since the
1930s. I can hardly believe it is still allowed for that purpose in the
U.S. or almost anywhere else in the World.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[...]
> I found this example interesting:
>
> " [...] a small cellulose nitrate button sealed in a polyethylene bag
> was left lying on a compact disk, still sealed in its original polyethylene
> wrapping.
Where on earth did they get a cellulose nitrate button? Nitrate has
>
> " [...] a small cellulose nitrate button sealed in a polyethylene bag
> was left lying on a compact disk, still sealed in its original polyethylene
> wrapping.
been banned as a plastic for domestic articles in the U.K. since the
1930s. I can hardly believe it is still allowed for that purpose in the
U.S. or almost anywhere else in the World.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Ron Capik
Mar 29, 2012, 5:10:37 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 4:56 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Ron Capik<r.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> I found this example interesting:
>>
>> " [...] a small cellulose nitrate button sealed in a polyethylene bag
>> was left lying on a compact disk, still sealed in its original polyethylene
>> wrapping.
>
> Where on earth did they get a cellulose nitrate button? Nitrate has
> been banned as a plastic for domestic articles in the U.K. since the
> 1930s. I can hardly believe it is still allowed for that purpose in the
> U.S. or almost anywhere else in the World.
>
>
Well the paper was related to museum archives.
> Ron Capik<r.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> I found this example interesting:
>>
>> " [...] a small cellulose nitrate button sealed in a polyethylene bag
>> was left lying on a compact disk, still sealed in its original polyethylene
>> wrapping.
>
> Where on earth did they get a cellulose nitrate button? Nitrate has
> been banned as a plastic for domestic articles in the U.K. since the
> 1930s. I can hardly believe it is still allowed for that purpose in the
> U.S. or almost anywhere else in the World.
>
>
William Sommerwerck
Mar 29, 2012, 5:48:16 PM3/29/12
to
> Glass is the gold standard of hermetic enclosures, but store a
> photomultiplier next to a slightly leaking tank of helium and the
> photomultiplier is ruined -- the helium goes right through the glass.
Two interesting stories with regard to that...
> photomultiplier next to a slightly leaking tank of helium and the
> photomultiplier is ruined -- the helium goes right through the glass.
The earliest LV players used He-Ne lasers. They'd eventually stop working as
the helium leaked out. They could be fixed by inserting the laser in a
helium balloon for a few days.
Chicago Miniature Lamps' use and selection guide stated that helium could
shorten the life of an incandescent bulb (I don't remember the reason), and
that helium from the atmosphere actually entered lamps through the glass.
Trevor
Mar 29, 2012, 7:05:28 PM3/29/12
to
"Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f74a351$0$56783$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Do not trust any CD, rip them on arrival. CD's are a transport media, not
> a storage media.
Which might be OK if we actually had a better storage media to copy them to.
> a storage media.
> I've been ripping many to get listened to what's on them, and found that 1
> to 2 percent required ripping with Feurio because it is uniquely good at
> getting sound off of poor CD's. Age does not seem to be a parameter - I've
> found amazing levels of C2 errors on brand new cd's, but problems are
> marginally worse the more there's on them.
term storage of those without errors.
Trevor.
Bill
Mar 29, 2012, 7:33:47 PM3/29/12
to
In message <jl2mbk$mo5$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
writes
At the moment, I'm trying to re-archive material onto big hard drives
and CD's, with the material divided into CD sized portions. Material
from old CD's, DATs and reel to reel
I was also considering DVD's of data, but I've had several fail. Some of
the data CD's from when I was running a business have become unreadable,
but it seems to be the DVD's that are worse. Some have developed radial
cracks, some pinholes, and now I've encountered 3 that have separated
horizontally, giving me two unreadable DVD's where I had one.
The CD's date back to the days when HP first brought out affordable
hardware and media - I can't remember when that was.
These were recordable CD's and DVD's not specially chosen for archiving,
just what was to hand at the time, but there really is a need for some
sort of archival storage that makes me feel even halfway confident.
--
Bill
writes
>"Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4f74a351$0$56783$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> Do not trust any CD, rip them on arrival. CD's are a transport media, not
>> a storage media.
>
>Which might be OK if we actually had a better storage media to copy
>them to.
I find the whole thing more than depressing.
>news:4f74a351$0$56783$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> Do not trust any CD, rip them on arrival. CD's are a transport media, not
>> a storage media.
>
>Which might be OK if we actually had a better storage media to copy
>them to.
At the moment, I'm trying to re-archive material onto big hard drives
and CD's, with the material divided into CD sized portions. Material
from old CD's, DATs and reel to reel
I was also considering DVD's of data, but I've had several fail. Some of
the data CD's from when I was running a business have become unreadable,
but it seems to be the DVD's that are worse. Some have developed radial
cracks, some pinholes, and now I've encountered 3 that have separated
horizontally, giving me two unreadable DVD's where I had one.
The CD's date back to the days when HP first brought out affordable
hardware and media - I can't remember when that was.
These were recordable CD's and DVD's not specially chosen for archiving,
just what was to hand at the time, but there really is a need for some
sort of archival storage that makes me feel even halfway confident.
--
Bill
Soundhaspriority
Mar 29, 2012, 8:05:50 PM3/29/12
to
How much extra would it cost to use gold? I seem to recall around 3 cents.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
swanny
Mar 29, 2012, 8:22:30 PM3/29/12
to
On 30/03/2012 10:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f74a351$0$56783$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> Do not trust any CD, rip them on arrival. CD's are a transport media, not
>> a storage media.
>
> Which might be OK if we actually had a better storage media to copy them to.
>
A RAID NAS is a good start. Also quick to re-duplicate the entire
> "Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f74a351$0$56783$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> Do not trust any CD, rip them on arrival. CD's are a transport media, not
>> a storage media.
>
> Which might be OK if we actually had a better storage media to copy them to.
>
collection to another storage media when it becomes available.
Scott Dorsey
Mar 29, 2012, 9:09:21 PM3/29/12
to
Bill <Billa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>These were recordable CD's and DVD's not specially chosen for archiving,
>just what was to hand at the time, but there really is a need for some
>sort of archival storage that makes me feel even halfway confident.
I've got a few cases of Ampex 641 left in the closet and I'm running
>
>These were recordable CD's and DVD's not specially chosen for archiving,
>just what was to hand at the time, but there really is a need for some
>sort of archival storage that makes me feel even halfway confident.
safeties off on that. When it's gone, it's gone. The formulation didn't
change for 50 years, so we have at least 50 years of experience with it
in regards to stability.
Adrian Tuddenham
Mar 30, 2012, 4:59:13 AM3/30/12
to
some years ago, the atmosphere inside the bathysphere was a Helium
/Oxgen mixture. The divers were supplied with a television set but they
had to change a complete set of valves every few days as the Helium
diffused through the glass and the vacuum went 'soft'.
Neil Gould
Mar 30, 2012, 8:05:01 AM3/30/12
to
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill <Billa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> These were recordable CD's and DVD's not specially chosen for
>> archiving, just what was to hand at the time, but there really is a
>> need for some sort of archival storage that makes me feel even
>> halfway confident.
>
> I've got a few cases of Ampex 641 left in the closet and I'm running
> safeties off on that. When it's gone, it's gone. The formulation
> didn't change for 50 years, so we have at least 50 years of
> experience with it in regards to stability.
> --scott
>
The real saving grace for analog storage is that degradadation doesn't keep
> Bill <Billa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> These were recordable CD's and DVD's not specially chosen for
>> archiving, just what was to hand at the time, but there really is a
>> need for some sort of archival storage that makes me feel even
>> halfway confident.
>
> I've got a few cases of Ampex 641 left in the closet and I'm running
> safeties off on that. When it's gone, it's gone. The formulation
> didn't change for 50 years, so we have at least 50 years of
> experience with it in regards to stability.
> --scott
>
it from working. I've been saying for a couple of decades now that there is
no practical archival digital storage media, and it seems now we're seeing
the truth of marketing claims to the contrary.
--
best regards,
Neil
William Sommerwerck
Mar 30, 2012, 7:36:46 AM3/30/12
to
> The real saving grace for analog storage is that degradation
years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply backed up and
periodically checked for integrity.
I keep three copies of my important work. One is updated daily, another
every two or three weeks, and a third every few months.
I developed a system for archival digital storage, which should be good for
several thousand years. I've never patented it, because I don't think it
would be commercially successful.
By the way, it's deterioration, not degradation. "Degrade" is a transitive
verb, not reflexive.
> doesn't keep it from working. I've been saying for a couple of
> decades now that there is no practical archival digital storage
> media, and it seems now we're seeing the truth of marketing
> claims to the contrary.
There's no reason current digital files shouldn't be readable a million
> decades now that there is no practical archival digital storage
> media, and it seems now we're seeing the truth of marketing
> claims to the contrary.
years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply backed up and
periodically checked for integrity.
I keep three copies of my important work. One is updated daily, another
every two or three weeks, and a third every few months.
I developed a system for archival digital storage, which should be good for
several thousand years. I've never patented it, because I don't think it
would be commercially successful.
By the way, it's deterioration, not degradation. "Degrade" is a transitive
verb, not reflexive.
Arny Krueger
Mar 30, 2012, 8:31:58 AM3/30/12
to
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CB9A0D2E...@News.Individual.NET...
> The question was always how long would a CD remain in tact. How long would
> it
> play properly?
>
> In the last two months I have reached for SFX CD sold by Aircraft and
> Century
> 21, only to hear glitches within each track. I acquired these CDs sometime
> between the mid 1980s to 1990. So that's about 25 years, maybe slightly
> more.
>
> These are CD not CD-R. They are kept in my air conditioned studio. They
> are
> not scratched.
The relevant question is how did you store them?
> it
> play properly?
>
> In the last two months I have reached for SFX CD sold by Aircraft and
> Century
> 21, only to hear glitches within each track. I acquired these CDs sometime
> between the mid 1980s to 1990. So that's about 25 years, maybe slightly
> more.
>
> These are CD not CD-R. They are kept in my air conditioned studio. They
> are
> not scratched.
Last time I listened to the CDs that I bought in the early 80s, they were
all in good shape. Several years ago.
One of the things I have found is that while one layer of
waterproofing/moisture proofing is pretty ineffective, multiple layers work
wonders.
(1) Lesson 1: As many of you know my family are inveterate backwoods campers
and canoeists. Do that in a temperate/moist climate like that of the Great
Lakes region and you learn about water and what it does to everything that
you like. We learned that it takes about 3-4 layers of polyethylene bags to
keep things (including clothing) dry for even just a couple of weeks. We
field-tested this theory and its predecessors (that involved fewer layers)
through tip-overs and days of rain. Yup, 3-4 layers of ziplock bags, with
maybe a heavy duty garbage bag on top of it all.
(2) Lesson 2: We recently had a scourge of flour beetles, possibly brought
in by some long-term house guests. We found that as hard at they may be for
you to penetrate and eat what is inside them, the plastic film packing from
the food item manufacturer is often highly permeable, even to relatively
large living things. If that's true, they must be like screen doors for
moisture! Surprisingly enough, adding another layer of plastic in the form
of Sterilite plastic tubs vastly increased the freshness and useful life of
cereals, cookies, crackers, flours, food mixes, etc.
Neil Gould
Mar 30, 2012, 9:48:58 AM3/30/12
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> The real saving grace for analog storage is that degradation
>> doesn't keep it from working. I've been saying for a couple of
>> decades now that there is no practical archival digital storage
>> media, and it seems now we're seeing the truth of marketing
>> claims to the contrary.
>
> There's no reason current digital files shouldn't be readable a
> million years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply
> backed up and periodically checked for integrity.
>
I said nothing about the files, their format, or anything related to that
>> The real saving grace for analog storage is that degradation
>> doesn't keep it from working. I've been saying for a couple of
>> decades now that there is no practical archival digital storage
>> media, and it seems now we're seeing the truth of marketing
>> claims to the contrary.
>
> There's no reason current digital files shouldn't be readable a
> million years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply
> backed up and periodically checked for integrity.
>
aspect of digital recording. I stated, and maintain that *there is no
practical archival digital storage medium*
> By the way, it's deterioration, not degradation. "Degrade" is a
> transitive verb, not reflexive.
>
degradation is "... the breakdown of organic compounds", and that is the
context of the discussion, I'll stick with the term, thank you.
--
Neil
William Sommerwerck
Mar 30, 2012, 9:35:27 AM3/30/12
to
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:jl4ae1$64j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
digital storage medium", as archival storage can be obtained using existing
technology,
news:jl4ae1$64j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> The real saving grace for analog storage is that degradation
>>> doesn't keep it from working. I've been saying for a couple of
>>> decades now that there is no practical archival digital storage
>>> media, and it seems now we're seeing the truth of marketing
>>> claims to the contrary.
>> There's no reason current digital files shouldn't be readable a
>> million years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply
>> backed up and periodically checked for integrity.
> I said nothing about the files, their format, or anything related to that
> aspect of digital recording. I stated, and maintain that *there is no
> practical archival digital storage medium*
My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical archival
>>> The real saving grace for analog storage is that degradation
>>> doesn't keep it from working. I've been saying for a couple of
>>> decades now that there is no practical archival digital storage
>>> media, and it seems now we're seeing the truth of marketing
>>> claims to the contrary.
>> There's no reason current digital files shouldn't be readable a
>> million years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply
>> backed up and periodically checked for integrity.
> I said nothing about the files, their format, or anything related to that
> aspect of digital recording. I stated, and maintain that *there is no
> practical archival digital storage medium*
digital storage medium", as archival storage can be obtained using existing
technology,
Neil Gould
Mar 30, 2012, 10:43:37 AM3/30/12
to
If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive resources
simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO. You may find that
working for nothing is acceptable, but I do not.
--
best regards,
Neil
William Sommerwerck
Mar 30, 2012, 9:57:49 AM3/30/12
to
>> My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical
>> archival digital storage medium", as archival storage can be
>> obtained using existing technology,
> Did you mean "...there is _no_ need for..."?
Yes. It's amazing how often the mind works faster than the fingers. My
>> archival digital storage medium", as archival storage can be
>> obtained using existing technology,
> Did you mean "...there is _no_ need for..."?
typing accuracy has noticeably /deteriorated/ over the past few years.
> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive resources
> simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO. You may find that
> working for nothing is acceptable, but I do not.
"simple" system -- which current methods of long-term backup aren't.
Neil Gould
Mar 30, 2012, 11:07:08 AM3/30/12
to
well. Current media materials do not protect against errors caused by
/degradation/, and as long as that is so, to "ask for a 'simple' system"
using those materials is folly. I see no "correctness" in the perpetuation
of folly.
--
best regards,
Neil
Message has been deleted
William Sommerwerck
Mar 30, 2012, 10:24:06 AM3/30/12
to
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:jl4f0k$idp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive
>>> resources simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
>>> You may find that working for nothing is acceptable, but I do not.
>> I can't really disagree with that. But it would be more-correct to
>> ask for a "simple" system -- which current methods of long-term
>> backup aren't.
> What on Earth is "more-correct"? Digital content does not tolerate errors
> well. Current media materials do not protect against errors caused by
> /degradation/, and as long as that is so, to "ask for a 'simple' system"
> using those materials is folly. I see no "correctness" in the perpetuation
> of folly.
I don't see how one can distinguish among /any/ form of data errors -- other
>>> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive
>>> resources simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
>>> You may find that working for nothing is acceptable, but I do not.
>> I can't really disagree with that. But it would be more-correct to
>> ask for a "simple" system -- which current methods of long-term
>> backup aren't.
> What on Earth is "more-correct"? Digital content does not tolerate errors
> well. Current media materials do not protect against errors caused by
> /degradation/, and as long as that is so, to "ask for a 'simple' system"
> using those materials is folly. I see no "correctness" in the perpetuation
> of folly.
than how easily they can be fully corrected. Are the errors caused by media
/deterioration/ harder to correct than others? I don't know.
There are perfectly "practical" ways of archiving digital material.
Regularly making multiple backups using different types of storage is one.
But these systems aren't /simple/ -- they require conscious effort to make
sure the backups have not become corrupt.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 30, 2012, 10:56:16 AM3/30/12
to
> So I guess the folly of political correctness is rather redundant...
I should have said "more-accurate" instead of "more-correct".
I should have said "more-accurate" instead of "more-correct".
Neil Gould
Mar 30, 2012, 11:52:44 AM3/30/12
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:jl4f0k$idp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>>> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive
>>>> resources simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
>>>> You may find that working for nothing is acceptable, but I do not.
>
>>> I can't really disagree with that. But it would be more-correct to
>>> ask for a "simple" system -- which current methods of long-term
>>> backup aren't.
>
>> What on Earth is "more-correct"? Digital content does not tolerate
>> errors well. Current media materials do not protect against errors
>> caused by /degradation/, and as long as that is so, to "ask for a
>> 'simple' system" using those materials is folly. I see no
>> "correctness" in the perpetuation of folly.
>
> I don't see how one can distinguish among /any/ form of data errors
> -- other than how easily they can be fully corrected. Are the errors
> caused by media /deterioration/ harder to correct than others? I
> don't know.
>
It's quite easy to distinguish between the forms and impacts of data errors
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:jl4f0k$idp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>>> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive
>>>> resources simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
>>>> You may find that working for nothing is acceptable, but I do not.
>
>>> I can't really disagree with that. But it would be more-correct to
>>> ask for a "simple" system -- which current methods of long-term
>>> backup aren't.
>
>> What on Earth is "more-correct"? Digital content does not tolerate
>> errors well. Current media materials do not protect against errors
>> caused by /degradation/, and as long as that is so, to "ask for a
>> 'simple' system" using those materials is folly. I see no
>> "correctness" in the perpetuation of folly.
>
> I don't see how one can distinguish among /any/ form of data errors
> -- other than how easily they can be fully corrected. Are the errors
> caused by media /deterioration/ harder to correct than others? I
> don't know.
>
between analog and digital media of any type.
> There are perfectly "practical" ways of archiving digital material.
>
--
best regards,
Neil
Message has been deleted
William Sommerwerck
Mar 30, 2012, 11:18:28 AM3/30/12
to
> I am puzzled by your failure to grasp that I've only referred to media.
Then I'm confused, because there's no such thing as an "archival" medium.
All media can deteriorate or be destroyed. If you want to be sure that
information remains available for an indefinite period, then you need a
system to detect and correct errors.
Am I missing something? I don't mean that sarcastically.
hank alrich
Mar 30, 2012, 11:36:10 AM3/30/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There are perfectly "practical" ways of archiving digital material.
> Regularly making multiple backups using different types of storage is one.
> But these systems aren't /simple/ -- they require conscious effort to make
> sure the backups have not become corrupt.
IMO, one doesn't need much of an archive for that to become impractical.
> There are perfectly "practical" ways of archiving digital material.
> Regularly making multiple backups using different types of storage is one.
> But these systems aren't /simple/ -- they require conscious effort to make
> sure the backups have not become corrupt.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Neil Gould
Mar 30, 2012, 1:12:08 PM3/30/12
to
survive and deliver the essence of their content for a couple of millenia
without active involvement (e.g. stone and papyrus), is rarely debatable
when that period is only a century or so (e.g. some photographic materials),
but would exclude those materials that can fail under ideal storage
conditions within a decade or two.
Further, I know of no usage of "archival media" that requires such materials
to be indestructable.
--
best regards,
Neil
Mike Rivers
Mar 30, 2012, 4:32:42 PM3/30/12
to
On 3/30/2012 1:12 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
> The common usage of the term "archival media" includes materials that can
> survive and deliver the essence of their content for a couple of millenia
> without active involvement
No, that's the classical usage of the term. The common usage
> The common usage of the term "archival media" includes materials that can
> survive and deliver the essence of their content for a couple of millenia
> without active involvement
is "any medium that isn't my computer's hard drive."
> Further, I know of no usage of "archival media" that requires such materials
> to be indestructable.
indestructible, but that that the data and the media are
equally robust as a package. A polycarbonate disk will stay
in the landfill for a hundred years, but it's not a good
archival medium if the aluminum on which the data is decoded
rots in 20 years or less.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Soundhaspriority
Mar 30, 2012, 4:49:07 PM3/30/12
to
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:jl559c$k5t$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 3/30/2012 1:12 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> The common usage of the term "archival media" includes materials that can
>> survive and deliver the essence of their content for a couple of millenia
>> without active involvement
>
> No, that's the classical usage of the term. The common usage is "any
> medium that isn't my computer's hard drive."
>
>> Further, I know of no usage of "archival media" that requires such
>> materials
>> to be indestructable.
>
> No, but it might help. Not so much that the media be indestructible, but
> that that the data and the media are equally robust as a package. A
> polycarbonate disk will stay in the landfill for a hundred years, but it's
> not a good archival medium if the aluminum on which the data is decoded
> rots in 20 years or less.
>
The definition of an archival medium turned out to be a good one. A bad
>
>> The common usage of the term "archival media" includes materials that can
>> survive and deliver the essence of their content for a couple of millenia
>> without active involvement
>
> No, that's the classical usage of the term. The common usage is "any
> medium that isn't my computer's hard drive."
>
>> Further, I know of no usage of "archival media" that requires such
>> materials
>> to be indestructable.
>
> No, but it might help. Not so much that the media be indestructible, but
> that that the data and the media are equally robust as a package. A
> polycarbonate disk will stay in the landfill for a hundred years, but it's
> not a good archival medium if the aluminum on which the data is decoded
> rots in 20 years or less.
>
medium is one in which the lifetime clusters about one number. You make 100
copies of something. Twenty years later, 90% of them are still good. Twenty
five years later, all of them are bad. No matter how many backups you make,
clustering of failures surprises the user with irretrievable data loss.
A good archival medium would have an exponential failure rate. You make 100
copies. Ten years later, 90% of them are still good. Twenty years later, 81%
still good. Thirty years later, 72% still good, and the number holds up.
With this characteristic, the user could easily compute this:
"I want a 90% chance of ten good copies after 200 years. How many copies
(and how much expense), do I need to achieve this goal on a statistical
basis?
Analog answered this question a long time ago, in a different way: "I want
people to be able to hear John F. Kennedy's inaugural address two hundred
years from now. What level of fidelity can be provided?" Analog is an
example of mostly exponential decay, as the magnetic domains randomize. Of
course, tape shedding does have that digital divide to it.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
Mar 30, 2012, 9:51:50 PM3/30/12
to
On 3/30/2012 4:49 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:
> A good archival medium would have an exponential failure
> rate. You make 100 copies. Ten years later, 90% of them are
> still good. Twenty years later, 81% still good. Thirty years
> later, 72% still good, and the number holds up. With this
> characteristic, the user could easily compute this:
>
> "I want a 90% chance of ten good copies after 200 years. How
> many copies (and how much expense), do I need to achieve
> this goal on a statistical basis?
But how many of us, even professional archivists, make a
> A good archival medium would have an exponential failure
> rate. You make 100 copies. Ten years later, 90% of them are
> still good. Twenty years later, 81% still good. Thirty years
> later, 72% still good, and the number holds up. With this
> characteristic, the user could easily compute this:
>
> "I want a 90% chance of ten good copies after 200 years. How
> many copies (and how much expense), do I need to achieve
> this goal on a statistical basis?
large number of copies when the material is stored? You
might make two or three copies and store them in different
places to hedge against fire or flood, and then maybe in 10
years, or whenever has been determined (or estimated) as a
reasonable time for that medium, make a copy of the copy,
probably on a different medium de jour.
> Analog answered this question a long time ago, in a
> different way: "I want people to be able to hear John F.
> Kennedy's inaugural address two hundred years from now. What
> level of fidelity can be provided?" Analog is an example of
> mostly exponential decay, as the magnetic domains randomize.
> Of course, tape shedding does have that digital divide to it.
shredding will occur, and can make a next-generation copy
before that happens. The fidelity may degrade slightly, but
for all but scientific purposes, that really doesn't matter.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 31, 2012, 7:19:40 AM3/31/12
to
I agree there's no one definition of what comprises an archival medium. For
me, it's a medium highly likely to outlive me, with zero perceived errors.
(I'll be 65 in a few weeks.) After I'm dead, I won't know if it fails.
It seems to me that an archiving /process/ is more important than the medium
chosen. It's important to have a process in place, even for material that
seems unlikely to be lost or corrupted. The most-important photo I ever took
disappeared from the flash card to which it had originally been written.
(Nothing else on the card was affected!) Fortunately, I had a backup, and
made more copies.
I recently pulled out commercial open-reel tapes that were at least 35 years
old. All but one were in perfect or close-to-perfect condition. (Amazingly,
I'd bought a second copy of that recording some years back, so I had a good
spare.) I will eventually dub them to 8mm DAT -- unless I can find a
"reasonably" priced four-channel recording system for my computer. (8mm DAT
is not exactly robust.)
me, it's a medium highly likely to outlive me, with zero perceived errors.
(I'll be 65 in a few weeks.) After I'm dead, I won't know if it fails.
It seems to me that an archiving /process/ is more important than the medium
chosen. It's important to have a process in place, even for material that
seems unlikely to be lost or corrupted. The most-important photo I ever took
disappeared from the flash card to which it had originally been written.
(Nothing else on the card was affected!) Fortunately, I had a backup, and
made more copies.
I recently pulled out commercial open-reel tapes that were at least 35 years
old. All but one were in perfect or close-to-perfect condition. (Amazingly,
I'd bought a second copy of that recording some years back, so I had a good
spare.) I will eventually dub them to 8mm DAT -- unless I can find a
"reasonably" priced four-channel recording system for my computer. (8mm DAT
is not exactly robust.)
John Williamson
Mar 31, 2012, 8:25:47 AM3/31/12
to
recording direct to SD card, but it involves opening the case and
getting up close and personal with SMDs.
Or, IME, just about any four input sound interface is better than the
playback on commercial tapes, and Audacity can cope with four tracks at
once.
What do you call reasonably priced? With balanced in and out, they cost
from about GBP 85 over here on the right hand side of the Atlantic, and
plug into a USB port. The Zoom R16 recorder/ interface is about GBP275,
but that may be more than you want or need. Or, you could try putting a
second sound card into a desktop PC to work as well as the onboard
sound, depending on your computer skills, the sound quality needed and a
bit of luck.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 31, 2012, 8:39:53 AM3/31/12
to
> What do you call reasonably priced?
US$100 to $200 would be reasonable.
John Williamson
Mar 31, 2012, 9:05:30 AM3/31/12
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> What do you call reasonably priced?
>
> US$100 to $200 would be reasonable.
>
>
The Lexicon Omega, if you can find one, comes with DAW software and
>> What do you call reasonably priced?
>
> US$100 to $200 would be reasonable.
>
>
should be below the top end of your budget. If your machine will play
back a DVD without stuttering, it's good enough to record four channels
using the Omega.
There are other interfaces that will do the job, but the Lexicon's the
one I've got experience with.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 31, 2012, 10:05:26 AM3/31/12
to
> The Lexicon Omega, if you can find one, comes with DAW
> software and should be below the top end of your budget.
> If your machine will play back a DVD without stuttering, it's
> good enough to record four channels using the Omega.
> There are other interfaces that will do the job, but the Lexicon's
> the one I've got experience with.
I have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of Lexicon products. I'll look for it.
> software and should be below the top end of your budget.
> If your machine will play back a DVD without stuttering, it's
> good enough to record four channels using the Omega.
> There are other interfaces that will do the job, but the Lexicon's
> the one I've got experience with.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 31, 2012, 10:19:45 AM3/31/12
to
I just studied up on the Lexicon Omega. No dice.
Too many reviewers complained about it not working properly, and how the
pots get noisy after a while. I was surprised that it had mic preamps. I'm
also bothered by the USB 1.1 interface.
"The price is right", but for a product that's basically little more than a
bunch of ADCs and an interface to feed a computer, it's disappointing.
Too many reviewers complained about it not working properly, and how the
pots get noisy after a while. I was surprised that it had mic preamps. I'm
also bothered by the USB 1.1 interface.
"The price is right", but for a product that's basically little more than a
bunch of ADCs and an interface to feed a computer, it's disappointing.
Scott Dorsey
Mar 31, 2012, 10:44:45 AM3/31/12
to
half bad, actually, certainly it's impressive at the price point.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Soundhaspriority
Mar 31, 2012, 3:10:53 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl5nvn$9em$1...@dont-email.me...
I was being a a futurist. How else are you going to use that 100,000 TB
disk? :)
There are different kinds of archivists. You and I are looking wistfully at
our CD collections. There are also people seriously interested in making
sure that 10,000,000 years from now, whoever is walking or crawling can hear
Earl Scruggs.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
> On 3/30/2012 4:49 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> A good archival medium would have an exponential failure
>> rate. You make 100 copies. Ten years later, 90% of them are
>> still good. Twenty years later, 81% still good. Thirty years
>> later, 72% still good, and the number holds up. With this
>> characteristic, the user could easily compute this:
>>
>> "I want a 90% chance of ten good copies after 200 years. How
>> many copies (and how much expense), do I need to achieve
>> this goal on a statistical basis?
>
> But how many of us, even professional archivists, make a large number of
> copies when the material is stored?
[snip
>
>> A good archival medium would have an exponential failure
>> rate. You make 100 copies. Ten years later, 90% of them are
>> still good. Twenty years later, 81% still good. Thirty years
>> later, 72% still good, and the number holds up. With this
>> characteristic, the user could easily compute this:
>>
>> "I want a 90% chance of ten good copies after 200 years. How
>> many copies (and how much expense), do I need to achieve
>> this goal on a statistical basis?
>
> But how many of us, even professional archivists, make a large number of
> copies when the material is stored?
I was being a a futurist. How else are you going to use that 100,000 TB
disk? :)
There are different kinds of archivists. You and I are looking wistfully at
our CD collections. There are also people seriously interested in making
sure that 10,000,000 years from now, whoever is walking or crawling can hear
Earl Scruggs.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
William Sommerwerck
Mar 31, 2012, 4:20:40 PM3/31/12
to
> There are different kinds of archivists. You and I are looking
> wistfully at our CD collections. There are also people seriously
> interested in making sure that, 10,000,000 years from now,
> wistfully at our CD collections. There are also people seriously
> whoever is walking or crawling can hear Earl Scruggs.
More power to them. I just hope our descendents don't think Lester Flatt was
a planarian.
Soundhaspriority
Mar 31, 2012, 4:21:00 PM3/31/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jl7osn$4qr$1...@dont-email.me...
be appreciated.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Message has been deleted
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:13:07 PM3/31/12
to
"swanny" <swa...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:c17dr.5015$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 30/03/2012 10:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> "Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4f74a351$0$56783$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>> Do not trust any CD, rip them on arrival. CD's are a transport media,
>>> not
>>> a storage media.
>>
>> Which might be OK if we actually had a better storage media to copy them
>> to.
>>
>
> A RAID NAS is a good start. Also quick to re-duplicate the entire
> collection to another storage media when it becomes available.
ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30 years and
still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system of any type. The
failure rate will be FAR higher.
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:15:24 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl45qf$a9u$1...@dont-email.me...
> There's no reason current digital files shouldn't be readable a million
> years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply backed up and
> periodically checked for integrity.
There's ZERO chance that will happen for a million years!
Trevor.
> There's no reason current digital files shouldn't be readable a million
> years from now. Critical information needs to be multiply backed up and
> periodically checked for integrity.
There's ZERO chance that will happen for a million years!
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:23:14 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl4ae1$64j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> I said nothing about the files, their format, or anything related to that
> aspect of digital recording. I stated, and maintain that *there is no
> practical archival digital storage medium*
How do you know pressed CD's using a gold relective layer won't outlast
analog tape? Then there are molecular manipulation storage techniques which
look fairly promising. And IF you think tape is perfect, simply use a
digital tape recorder to avoid all the problems of analog tape. I guess your
whole argument hinges on what YOU define as practical.
Trevor.
> I said nothing about the files, their format, or anything related to that
> aspect of digital recording. I stated, and maintain that *there is no
> practical archival digital storage medium*
How do you know pressed CD's using a gold relective layer won't outlast
analog tape? Then there are molecular manipulation storage techniques which
look fairly promising. And IF you think tape is perfect, simply use a
digital tape recorder to avoid all the problems of analog tape. I guess your
whole argument hinges on what YOU define as practical.
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:24:20 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl4cov$s1f$1...@dont-email.me...
> My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical archival
> digital storage medium", as archival storage can be obtained using
> existing
> technology,
And digital bits can be saved on any of them.
Trevor.
> My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical archival
> digital storage medium", as archival storage can be obtained using
> existing
> technology,
And digital bits can be saved on any of them.
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:27:02 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl4dkg$efp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
method of choice.
Trevor.
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical
>> archival digital storage medium", as archival storage can be obtained
>> using existing technology,
>>
> Did you mean "...there is _no_ need for..."?
>> My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical
>> archival digital storage medium", as archival storage can be obtained
>> using existing technology,
>>
>
> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive resources
> simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your archival
> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive resources
> simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
method of choice.
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:30:21 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl4f0k$idp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
is in fact the ONLY storage that *does* "tolerate errors well" !
Trevor.
> Digital content does not tolerate errors well.
Digital storage with it's error checking and high levels of data redundancy
is in fact the ONLY storage that *does* "tolerate errors well" !
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:39:43 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl559c$k5t$1...@dont-email.me...
feasable (at a cost) to apply a new reflective layer and make a disk
readable again. In fact there is NO reason why a pressed CD should not be
*FAR* more archival than any current techniques including stone tablets IMO!
(As long as data for how to read it is also available of course! :-)
Hell it might even be best to make them without any reflective layer or
epoxy coating, that can be added whenever necessary.
Trevor.
> No, but it might help. Not so much that the media be indestructible, but
> that that the data and the media are equally robust as a package. A
> polycarbonate disk will stay in the landfill for a hundred years, but it's
> not a good archival medium if the aluminum on which the data is decoded
> rots in 20 years or less.
The data is NOT encoded in the aluminium of a pressed disk, and it's
> that that the data and the media are equally robust as a package. A
> polycarbonate disk will stay in the landfill for a hundred years, but it's
> not a good archival medium if the aluminum on which the data is decoded
> rots in 20 years or less.
feasable (at a cost) to apply a new reflective layer and make a disk
readable again. In fact there is NO reason why a pressed CD should not be
*FAR* more archival than any current techniques including stone tablets IMO!
(As long as data for how to read it is also available of course! :-)
Hell it might even be best to make them without any reflective layer or
epoxy coating, that can be added whenever necessary.
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 9:44:42 PM3/31/12
to
news:jl5nvn$9em$1...@dont-email.me...
and successive loss of quality every time a new copy is made doesn't matter.
Personally I'd FAR rather use digital tape and avoid that successive quality
loss, since eventually new players must be made to play whatever you've
stored anyway.
Trevor.
> True, but we know, or at least we think we know, when shredding will
> occur, and can make a next-generation copy before that happens. The
> fidelity may degrade slightly, but for all but scientific purposes, that
> really doesn't matter.
Funny to hear someone say on a pro audio group that quality doesn't matter,
> occur, and can make a next-generation copy before that happens. The
> fidelity may degrade slightly, but for all but scientific purposes, that
> really doesn't matter.
and successive loss of quality every time a new copy is made doesn't matter.
Personally I'd FAR rather use digital tape and avoid that successive quality
loss, since eventually new players must be made to play whatever you've
stored anyway.
Trevor.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 31, 2012, 10:25:01 PM3/31/12
to
> The data are NOT encoded in the aluminium of a pressed disk,
> and it's feasable (at a cost) to apply a new reflective layer and
> make a disk readable again.
I've said that many times. It's unfortunate no one provides such a service.
> make a disk readable again.
Trevor
Mar 31, 2012, 10:49:17 AM3/31/12
to
news:jl8e7r$mh4$1...@dont-email.me...
Have you tried? (Or simply ignored the "at a cost" part.) That it may not be
cost effective for you is a different issue entirely. Given sufficient
demand it should be quite possible to do it at a fairly minor cost. But
probably not likely for less than the cost of a new CD where one is readily
available, so that would be an issue at the moment. However that does NOT
reduce the long term archival ability of pressed CD's.
Trevor.
cost effective for you is a different issue entirely. Given sufficient
demand it should be quite possible to do it at a fairly minor cost. But
probably not likely for less than the cost of a new CD where one is readily
available, so that would be an issue at the moment. However that does NOT
reduce the long term archival ability of pressed CD's.
Trevor.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 1, 2012, 5:24:04 AM4/1/12
to
>>> The data are NOT encoded in the aluminium of a pressed disk,
>>> and it's feasable (at a cost) to apply a new reflective layer and
>>> make a disk readable again.
>> I've said that many times. It's unfortunate no one provides such a
>> service.
> Have you tried? (Or simply ignored the "at a cost" part.) That it may
> not be cost effective for you is a different issue entirely. Given
sufficient
> demand it should be quite possible to do it at a fairly minor cost. But
> probably not likely for less than the cost of a new CD where one is
> readily available, so that would be an issue at the moment. However,
>>> and it's feasable (at a cost) to apply a new reflective layer and
>>> make a disk readable again.
>> I've said that many times. It's unfortunate no one provides such a
>> service.
> Have you tried? (Or simply ignored the "at a cost" part.) That it may
> not be cost effective for you is a different issue entirely. Given
sufficient
> demand it should be quite possible to do it at a fairly minor cost. But
> probably not likely for less than the cost of a new CD where one is
> that does NOT reduce the long term archival ability of pressed CD's.
Obviously. In order for such a "refurbishing" to be economically practical,
you'd have to process hundreds of disks at a time. I doubt there's enough
demand.
Bill
Apr 1, 2012, 7:39:03 AM4/1/12
to
In message <9tobee...@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes
on-board sound and the second sound card were clocked at exactly the
same rate.
My own problem is different. First, the recordings I have are mainly
from live broadcasts or recordings for later broadcast. They were not
considered intrinsically valuable at the time so, in many cases, it is
only by chance that I still have them.
I tried to archive some of them, mainly onto DAT, when I retired. The
tapes are OK, but the DAT machines have been a problem. I also
documented the contents, and can no longer find the documents. Add to
this that I have not been able to read some CD's and DVD's made from the
material, and it all gets too much.
The material has no real monetary value, but as age takes its toll on
performers and others, they and their families seem interested in the
historical value.
One of the recordings I'm still looking for was of a local band on an
outdoor stage at a local girl's school. A now fairly well-known
guitarist turned up and sat in unexpectedly with the band. We broadcast
live and didn't record. Later I happened across the tape we had run for
the slap-back echo. A dreadful mix, of course, but fascinating to listen
to.
We were set up next to one of the stalls for the school fair where the
local fire department ran a "Drench a Wench" event. I don't think that
would be allowed in these less fun-filled times.
--
Bill
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes
>Or, you could try putting a second sound card into a desktop PC to work
>as well as the onboard sound, depending on your computer skills, the
>sound quality needed and a bit of luck.
I think you would need more than a bit of luck to be sure that the
>as well as the onboard sound, depending on your computer skills, the
>sound quality needed and a bit of luck.
on-board sound and the second sound card were clocked at exactly the
same rate.
My own problem is different. First, the recordings I have are mainly
from live broadcasts or recordings for later broadcast. They were not
considered intrinsically valuable at the time so, in many cases, it is
only by chance that I still have them.
I tried to archive some of them, mainly onto DAT, when I retired. The
tapes are OK, but the DAT machines have been a problem. I also
documented the contents, and can no longer find the documents. Add to
this that I have not been able to read some CD's and DVD's made from the
material, and it all gets too much.
The material has no real monetary value, but as age takes its toll on
performers and others, they and their families seem interested in the
historical value.
One of the recordings I'm still looking for was of a local band on an
outdoor stage at a local girl's school. A now fairly well-known
guitarist turned up and sat in unexpectedly with the band. We broadcast
live and didn't record. Later I happened across the tape we had run for
the slap-back echo. A dreadful mix, of course, but fascinating to listen
to.
We were set up next to one of the stalls for the school fair where the
local fire department ran a "Drench a Wench" event. I don't think that
would be allowed in these less fun-filled times.
--
Bill
Neil Gould
Apr 1, 2012, 8:37:51 AM4/1/12
to
is also dependent on the use of the word "is". I can't buy pressed CDs with
gold reflective layers or on molecular manipulation storage media. So, while
I recognize that the truth of my comment may have temporal limits, I suspect
they're covered by the date stamp on the posting. ;-)
--
best regards,
Neil
Neil Gould
Apr 1, 2012, 8:40:58 AM4/1/12
to
can read it. The discussion isn't about the data format, Trevor.
--
Neil
Scott Dorsey
Apr 1, 2012, 9:02:24 AM4/1/12
to
In article <jl875r$692$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
>How do you know pressed CD's using a gold relective layer won't outlast
>analog tape? Then there are molecular manipulation storage techniques which
>look fairly promising. And IF you think tape is perfect, simply use a
>digital tape recorder to avoid all the problems of analog tape. I guess your
>whole argument hinges on what YOU define as practical.
In general, interfaces between materials is problematic. A lot of things
>
>How do you know pressed CD's using a gold relective layer won't outlast
>analog tape? Then there are molecular manipulation storage techniques which
>look fairly promising. And IF you think tape is perfect, simply use a
>digital tape recorder to avoid all the problems of analog tape. I guess your
>whole argument hinges on what YOU define as practical.
fail over the long term not because the materials themselves fail, but because
the interfaces do. That includes a lot of tape failures, and most lacquer
failures. Vinyl outgasses and loses plasticization but it's one big lump
and tends to outlast lacquers. Metal masters, if kept free of corrosion,
can do better than either.
It's a weird world.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 1, 2012, 9:07:14 AM4/1/12
to
though.
Ty Ford
Apr 1, 2012, 9:26:35 AM4/1/12
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:13:07 -0400, Trevor wrote
(in article <jl86is$559$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
> ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30 years and
> still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system of any type. The
> failure rate will be FAR higher.
>
> Trevor.
T,
The CDs I'm talking about were made in 1988 or so and have been in a
climatized environment in very indirect light.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
(in article <jl86is$559$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
> ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30 years and
> still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system of any type. The
> failure rate will be FAR higher.
>
> Trevor.
The CDs I'm talking about were made in 1988 or so and have been in a
climatized environment in very indirect light.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
hank alrich
Apr 1, 2012, 9:47:03 AM4/1/12
to
Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:13:07 -0400, Trevor wrote
> (in article <jl86is$559$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
>
> > ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30 years and
> > still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system of any type. The
> > failure rate will be FAR higher.
> >
> > Trevor.
>
>
> T,
>
> The CDs I'm talking about were made in 1988 or so and have been in a
> climatized environment in very indirect light.
There's your problem. You took care of them. You're supposed to leave
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:13:07 -0400, Trevor wrote
> (in article <jl86is$559$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
>
> > ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30 years and
> > still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system of any type. The
> > failure rate will be FAR higher.
> >
> > Trevor.
>
>
> T,
>
> The CDs I'm talking about were made in 1988 or so and have been in a
> climatized environment in very indirect light.
them slanging around on the floor of your pickup so they get a bit
mangled. That gives the error correction regular exercise, keeps it in
shape. Your EC has gone slacker on you.
HTH
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Mike Rivers
Apr 1, 2012, 9:57:42 AM4/1/12
to
On 4/1/2012 7:39 AM, Bill wrote:
> . . . the recordings I have
"professional" means that they get paid - and those who do
the job well continue to get paid. It's a real job, not an
incidental task that goes along with making a recording
> The material has no real monetary value, but as age takes
> its toll on performers and others, they and their families
> seem interested in the historical value.
This is what archives are about - preserving things so that
they'll be there in the event that they become valuable.
Sometimes it's friends and family who find value and some
pleasure in hearing those old recordings. Sometimes it's a
record company who wants to release "original recordings" of
an artist building a strong career. Sometimes it's to
validate a statement or a historical fact. Sometimes it's to
solve a murder case.
That's not to say that everything must be preserved to
eternity, but it's nice when you can pull a rabbit out of a
hat when one is called for.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
> . . . the recordings I have
> are mainly from live broadcasts or recordings for later
> broadcast. They were not considered intrinsically valuable
> at the time so, in many cases, it is only by chance that I
> still have them.
>
> I tried to archive some of them, mainly onto DAT, when I
> retired. The tapes are OK, but the DAT machines have been a
> problem. I also documented the contents, and can no longer
> find the documents. Add to this that I have not been able to
> read some CD's and DVD's made from the material, and it all
> gets too much.
This what professional archivists do, and in this context,
> broadcast. They were not considered intrinsically valuable
> at the time so, in many cases, it is only by chance that I
> still have them.
>
> I tried to archive some of them, mainly onto DAT, when I
> retired. The tapes are OK, but the DAT machines have been a
> problem. I also documented the contents, and can no longer
> find the documents. Add to this that I have not been able to
> read some CD's and DVD's made from the material, and it all
> gets too much.
"professional" means that they get paid - and those who do
the job well continue to get paid. It's a real job, not an
incidental task that goes along with making a recording
> The material has no real monetary value, but as age takes
> its toll on performers and others, they and their families
> seem interested in the historical value.
they'll be there in the event that they become valuable.
Sometimes it's friends and family who find value and some
pleasure in hearing those old recordings. Sometimes it's a
record company who wants to release "original recordings" of
an artist building a strong career. Sometimes it's to
validate a statement or a historical fact. Sometimes it's to
solve a murder case.
That's not to say that everything must be preserved to
eternity, but it's nice when you can pull a rabbit out of a
hat when one is called for.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Mike Rivers
Apr 1, 2012, 9:59:04 AM4/1/12
to
On 4/1/2012 8:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>> Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your
>> archival method of choice.
> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a player that
> can read it. The discussion isn't about the data format, Trevor.
They still make player pianos, don't they? And piano rolls?
>> Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your
>> archival method of choice.
> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a player that
> can read it. The discussion isn't about the data format, Trevor.
Message has been deleted
Neil Gould
Apr 1, 2012, 11:53:56 AM4/1/12
to
Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 8:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>> Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your
>>> archival method of choice.
>
>> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a
>> player that can read it. The discussion isn't about the data format,
>> Trevor.
>
> They still make player pianos, don't they? And piano rolls?
>
Wow. What can I say, other than they still make pencils, and they're
> On 4/1/2012 8:40 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>> Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your
>>> archival method of choice.
>
>> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a
>> player that can read it. The discussion isn't about the data format,
>> Trevor.
>
> They still make player pianos, don't they? And piano rolls?
>
cheaper, too? ;-)
So much for "practical" options.
--
Neil
Arny Krueger
Apr 1, 2012, 2:03:44 PM4/1/12
to
news:jl9f6l$nm1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CNC-NC-Mylar-Tape-Punch-DNC-Periferic-Zip-200lp-Tape-Punch-/251022385625#ht_500wt_1413
;-)
;-)
Neil Gould
Apr 1, 2012, 3:25:20 PM4/1/12
to
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:jl9f6l$nm1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Trevor wrote:
>>> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jl4dkg$efp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>> My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical
>>>>> archival digital storage medium", as archival storage can be
>>>>> obtained using existing technology,
>>>>>
>>>> Did you mean "...there is _no_ need for..."?
>>>>
>>>> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive
>>>> resources simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
>>>
>>> Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your
>>> archival method of choice.
>>>
>> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a
>> player that
>> can read it.
>
>
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CNC-NC-Mylar-Tape-Punch-DNC-Periferic-Zip-200lp-Tape-Punch-/251022385625#ht_500wt_1413
>
> ;-)
>
OK... If we're still talking about *audio*... this might work for
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:jl9f6l$nm1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Trevor wrote:
>>> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jl4dkg$efp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>> My point was that, in principle, there is need for "a practical
>>>>> archival digital storage medium", as archival storage can be
>>>>> obtained using existing technology,
>>>>>
>>>> Did you mean "...there is _no_ need for..."?
>>>>
>>>> If so, I disagree. Material that requires labor and/or extensive
>>>> resources simply to maintain its use is inferior to papyrus, IMO.
>>>
>>> Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your
>>> archival method of choice.
>>>
>> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a
>> player that
>> can read it.
>
>
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CNC-NC-Mylar-Tape-Punch-DNC-Periferic-Zip-200lp-Tape-Punch-/251022385625#ht_500wt_1413
>
> ;-)
>
transcribing 20 second 4-bit format audio recordings. You'd be better off
with a pencil. ;-)
--
best regards,
Neil
geoff
Apr 1, 2012, 5:03:02 PM4/1/12
to
Would have to be archival-grade paper though.
geoff
geoff
Apr 1, 2012, 5:05:55 PM4/1/12
to
hank alrich wrote:
> Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:13:07 -0400, Trevor wrote
>> (in article <jl86is$559$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
>>
>>> ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30
>>> years and still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system
>>> of any type. The failure rate will be FAR higher.
>>>
>>> Trevor.
>>
>>
>> T,
>>
>> The CDs I'm talking about were made in 1988 or so and have been in a
>> climatized environment in very indirect light.
>
> There's your problem. You took care of them. You're supposed to leave
> them slanging around on the floor of your pickup so they get a bit
> mangled. That gives the error correction regular exercise, keeps it in
> shape. Your EC has gone slacker on you.
I will never forget when CD-Rs were relatively new and I had a HP 4020i,
> Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:13:07 -0400, Trevor wrote
>> (in article <jl86is$559$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
>>
>>> ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30
>>> years and still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system
>>> of any type. The failure rate will be FAR higher.
>>>
>>> Trevor.
>>
>>
>> T,
>>
>> The CDs I'm talking about were made in 1988 or so and have been in a
>> climatized environment in very indirect light.
>
> There's your problem. You took care of them. You're supposed to leave
> them slanging around on the floor of your pickup so they get a bit
> mangled. That gives the error correction regular exercise, keeps it in
> shape. Your EC has gone slacker on you.
and therefore lots of (expensive) coasters, and actually started using them
as coasters ( they WERE a novelty at the time...).
That unfortunately made my daughter think that all CDs were coasters ....
geoff
Message has been deleted
Trevor
Apr 1, 2012, 6:40:29 AM4/1/12
to
news:jl96ph$oha$1...@dont-email.me...
when required either. But I'm sure one will be FAR easier and cheaper to do
when required at some future date. Guess which :-)
Trevor.
> Obviously. In order for such a "refurbishing" to be economically
> practical,
> you'd have to process hundreds of disks at a time. I doubt there's enough
> demand.
There's might not enough demand to build new Studer 24 track tape recorders
> practical,
> you'd have to process hundreds of disks at a time. I doubt there's enough
> demand.
when required either. But I'm sure one will be FAR easier and cheaper to do
when required at some future date. Guess which :-)
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 1, 2012, 6:45:22 AM4/1/12
to
news:jl9f0q$n71$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
layer, but that's no guarantee for those unfortunately.
Trevor.
>I can't buy pressed CDs with gold reflective layers
Actually you can, but not very many. Easier to get CDR with gold reflective
layer, but that's no guarantee for those unfortunately.
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 1, 2012, 6:47:02 AM4/1/12
to
news:jl9f6l$nm1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>The discussion isn't about the data format, Trevor.
It certainly has become that.
Trevor.
>> Digital bits can be stored on papyrus if you think that is your
>> archival method of choice.
>>
> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a player
> that
> can read it.
All you need is a pen, and lots of time :-)
>> archival method of choice.
>>
> So what? I can't buy a digital recorder that will do that, or a player
> that
> can read it.
>The discussion isn't about the data format, Trevor.
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 1, 2012, 6:52:08 AM4/1/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jl9ju2$1bm$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> I still can't call 1-800-SPUTTER and have someone re-aluminum my discs
> yet,
> though.
YET! It won't be that hard to do however when required.
> yet,
> though.
Won't be too long before 2" tape machines and new tape are not available
either.
Trevor.
Neil Gould
Apr 1, 2012, 8:31:03 PM4/1/12
to
Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:jl9f0q$n71$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> I can't buy pressed CDs with gold reflective layers
>
> Actually you can, but not very many.
>
So much for practicality...
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
> news:jl9f0q$n71$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> I can't buy pressed CDs with gold reflective layers
>
> Actually you can, but not very many.
>
> Easier to get CDR with gold
> reflective layer, but that's no guarantee for those unfortunately.
>
means nothing... CDRs are not archival.
--
best regards,
Neil
Neil Gould
Apr 1, 2012, 8:32:10 PM4/1/12
to
my comments in their deviation.
--
best regards,
Neil
Trevor
Apr 1, 2012, 9:52:27 AM4/1/12
to
news:jlaoq5$uie$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>... CDRs are not archival.
No argument. Pressed CD's are however. Even if the reflective layer may need
replacing one day, it can be done.
Trevor.
>>> I can't buy pressed CDs with gold reflective layers
>>
>> Actually you can, but not very many.
>>
> So much for practicality...
>
>> Easier to get CDR with gold
>> reflective layer, but that's no guarantee for those unfortunately.
>>
> Yes, well, I'm not all that susceptable to marketing drivel. The gold
> color
> means nothing
NOT just color for some.
>>
>> Actually you can, but not very many.
>>
> So much for practicality...
>
>> Easier to get CDR with gold
>> reflective layer, but that's no guarantee for those unfortunately.
>>
> Yes, well, I'm not all that susceptable to marketing drivel. The gold
> color
> means nothing
>... CDRs are not archival.
No argument. Pressed CD's are however. Even if the reflective layer may need
replacing one day, it can be done.
Trevor.
Trevor
Apr 1, 2012, 10:06:51 AM4/1/12
to
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CB9DCFCB...@News.Individual.NET...
>> ONLY if maintained. Most pressed CD's can sit in a draw for 30 years and
>> still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system of any type. The
>> failure rate will be FAR higher.
>
>> still play fine, try doing that with a hard disk system of any type. The
>> failure rate will be FAR higher.
>
> The CDs I'm talking about were made in 1988 or so and have been in a
> climatized environment in very indirect light.
And I have *MANY* 30 YO old ones that play fine, how many 30YO hard disks do
> climatized environment in very indirect light.
you have that you can still play?
I've got a 30YO, 10MB hard drive that MAY still work, (I certainly wouldn't
want to bet on it not being seized by now) but no computer that it will work
with in any case.
YOU ???
Trevor.
Marc Wielage
Apr 5, 2012, 4:03:46 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:59:26 -0700, Ty Ford wrote
(in article <0001HW.CB9A0D2E...@News.Individual.NET>):
> Mfgrs are DISCOVERY SYSTEMS AND LASER VIDEO
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Yes, Discovery Systems (which I think was out of Ohio in the 1980s) was known
to have a lot of defective pressings. My bet is that either there were
impurities in the reflective layer or problems with the ink dyes making a
chemical reaction in the polycarbon layers.
My experience is, I never had a perfect disc go bad -- even going back to
1982, when I started buying CDs -- but I have had discs that were slightly
defective get worse. I've seen other weird chemical reactions, like when the
ink from the booklet reacted with the disc surface over a long period of
time, like 15-20 years.
--MFW
(in article <0001HW.CB9A0D2E...@News.Individual.NET>):
> Mfgrs are DISCOVERY SYSTEMS AND LASER VIDEO
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Yes, Discovery Systems (which I think was out of Ohio in the 1980s) was known
to have a lot of defective pressings. My bet is that either there were
impurities in the reflective layer or problems with the ink dyes making a
chemical reaction in the polycarbon layers.
My experience is, I never had a perfect disc go bad -- even going back to
1982, when I started buying CDs -- but I have had discs that were slightly
defective get worse. I've seen other weird chemical reactions, like when the
ink from the booklet reacted with the disc surface over a long period of
time, like 15-20 years.
--MFW
Marc Wielage
Apr 5, 2012, 4:11:52 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:33:47 -0700, Bill wrote
(in article <u7SsetPb...@itsound.demon.co.uk>):
> At the moment, I'm trying to re-archive material onto big hard drives
> and CD's, with the material divided into CD sized portions. Material
> from old CD's, DATs and reel to reel...
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
That can work. Just be aware that hard drives fail, too. There's an old
saying: if you don't have your data in _at least 3 places_, you don't really
own your data. That means main copy, backup #1, and backup #2. I'm not
convinced optical discs are any better; I've had those fail, too, with all
recordable media (CD-R, DVD-R, BD-R, BD-E, you name it).
Even then, you'll be lucky if the drives last 5-7 years. Somewhere before
then, you have to migrate the data to newer drives. The good news is,
they'll be larger and cost less than the original drives; the bad news is, if
the drives fail before you can make the copies, you're screwed.
The motion picture, TV, and record businesses are struggling with the whole
issue of how to do vast long-term digital archival storage of enormous media
libraries. Nobody has completely figured it out yet.
The Motion Picture Academy has been releasing technical papers on THE DIGITAL
DILEMMA, addressing concerns about how film, tape, digital files, and other
formats are going to survive over the next 100 years or so. Some good info
at this link:
http://www.oscars.org/science-
technology/council/projects/digitaldilemma2/index.html
Many sobering questions there. I don't envy studios, networks, and record
labels who own acres of warehouses filled with analog material that's all
disintegrating as time goes on. And the digital material is even more
tenuous and delicate in some ways.
--MFW
(in article <u7SsetPb...@itsound.demon.co.uk>):
> At the moment, I'm trying to re-archive material onto big hard drives
> and CD's, with the material divided into CD sized portions. Material
> from old CD's, DATs and reel to reel...
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
That can work. Just be aware that hard drives fail, too. There's an old
saying: if you don't have your data in _at least 3 places_, you don't really
own your data. That means main copy, backup #1, and backup #2. I'm not
convinced optical discs are any better; I've had those fail, too, with all
recordable media (CD-R, DVD-R, BD-R, BD-E, you name it).
Even then, you'll be lucky if the drives last 5-7 years. Somewhere before
then, you have to migrate the data to newer drives. The good news is,
they'll be larger and cost less than the original drives; the bad news is, if
the drives fail before you can make the copies, you're screwed.
The motion picture, TV, and record businesses are struggling with the whole
issue of how to do vast long-term digital archival storage of enormous media
libraries. Nobody has completely figured it out yet.
The Motion Picture Academy has been releasing technical papers on THE DIGITAL
DILEMMA, addressing concerns about how film, tape, digital files, and other
formats are going to survive over the next 100 years or so. Some good info
at this link:
http://www.oscars.org/science-
technology/council/projects/digitaldilemma2/index.html
Many sobering questions there. I don't envy studios, networks, and record
labels who own acres of warehouses filled with analog material that's all
disintegrating as time goes on. And the digital material is even more
tenuous and delicate in some ways.
--MFW
Marc Wielage
Apr 5, 2012, 4:20:19 PM4/5/12
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:19:40 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article <jl6p6b$moq$1...@dont-email.me>):
> I recently pulled out commercial open-reel tapes that were at least 35 years
> old. All but one were in perfect or close-to-perfect condition. (Amazingly,
> I'd bought a second copy of that recording some years back, so I had a good
> spare.) I will eventually dub them to 8mm DAT -- unless I can find a
> "reasonably" priced four-channel recording system for my computer. (8mm DAT
> is not exactly robust.)
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
I wouldn't do that if I were you, Bill. DAT is really flakey; I did some
archival restoration a few years ago, and we wound up using 6 different DAT
machines (including two $7000 Sony PCM-7040's) to play back tapes made from
1990-1998. DAT is a very, very impermanent medium.
BTW, DAT is only 3.8mm, not 8mm. I would trust something like this more to
digital files. A reasonable A/D converter is well under $500 these days; dub
it to high-res WAV files, then make several backups.
I try to operate on Peter Krogh's 3-2-1 Backup Rule:
http://www.dpbestflow.org/backup/backup-overview
Interestingly, the studios are using LTO-4 and LTO-5 data tapes for most of
their backups these days. But I've seen cases where the older DTF and DTF2
backup tapes failed, causing much consternation and disaster.
--MFW
(in article <jl6p6b$moq$1...@dont-email.me>):
> I recently pulled out commercial open-reel tapes that were at least 35 years
> old. All but one were in perfect or close-to-perfect condition. (Amazingly,
> I'd bought a second copy of that recording some years back, so I had a good
> spare.) I will eventually dub them to 8mm DAT -- unless I can find a
> "reasonably" priced four-channel recording system for my computer. (8mm DAT
> is not exactly robust.)
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
I wouldn't do that if I were you, Bill. DAT is really flakey; I did some
archival restoration a few years ago, and we wound up using 6 different DAT
machines (including two $7000 Sony PCM-7040's) to play back tapes made from
1990-1998. DAT is a very, very impermanent medium.
BTW, DAT is only 3.8mm, not 8mm. I would trust something like this more to
digital files. A reasonable A/D converter is well under $500 these days; dub
it to high-res WAV files, then make several backups.
I try to operate on Peter Krogh's 3-2-1 Backup Rule:
http://www.dpbestflow.org/backup/backup-overview
Interestingly, the studios are using LTO-4 and LTO-5 data tapes for most of
their backups these days. But I've seen cases where the older DTF and DTF2
backup tapes failed, causing much consternation and disaster.
--MFW
Marc Wielage
Apr 5, 2012, 4:23:37 PM4/5/12
to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:23:14 -0700, Trevor wrote
(in article <jl875r$692$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
> How do you know pressed CD's using a gold relective layer won't outlast
> analog tape? Then there are molecular manipulation storage techniques which
> look fairly promising.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
The Association for Recorded Sound Collections gets into archival discussions
quite frequently:
http://www.arsc-audio.org/
I would say long-term archival storage is one of the biggest challenges for
anybody that has large numbers of music, TV, or film performances. My fear
is that a lot of great movies, TV shows, and music is going to fall apart
before we can get it digitally archived to something stable, lossless, and
easily playable.
--MFW
(in article <jl875r$692$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):
> How do you know pressed CD's using a gold relective layer won't outlast
> analog tape? Then there are molecular manipulation storage techniques which
> look fairly promising.
Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
The Association for Recorded Sound Collections gets into archival discussions
quite frequently:
http://www.arsc-audio.org/
I would say long-term archival storage is one of the biggest challenges for
anybody that has large numbers of music, TV, or film performances. My fear
is that a lot of great movies, TV shows, and music is going to fall apart
before we can get it digitally archived to something stable, lossless, and
easily playable.
--MFW
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 5:37:38 PM4/5/12
to
>> I recently pulled out commercial open-reel tapes that were at least 35
years
>> old. All but one were in perfect or close-to-perfect condition.
(Amazingly,
>> I'd bought a second copy of that recording some years back, so I had
>> a good spare.) I will eventually dub them to 8mm DAT -- unless I can find
>> a "reasonably" priced four-channel recording system for my computer.
>> (8mm DAT is not exactly robust.)
> >------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
> I wouldn't do that if I were you, Bill. DAT is really flakey; I did some
> archival restoration a few years ago, and we wound up using 6 different
> DAT machines (including two $7000 Sony PCM-7040's) to play back
> tapes made from 1990-1998. DAT is a very, very impermanent medium.
Don't misunderstand -- I'm not going to get rid of the originals. No way.
years
>> old. All but one were in perfect or close-to-perfect condition.
(Amazingly,
>> I'd bought a second copy of that recording some years back, so I had
>> a good spare.) I will eventually dub them to 8mm DAT -- unless I can find
>> a "reasonably" priced four-channel recording system for my computer.
>> (8mm DAT is not exactly robust.)
> >------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
> I wouldn't do that if I were you, Bill. DAT is really flakey; I did some
> archival restoration a few years ago, and we wound up using 6 different
> DAT machines (including two $7000 Sony PCM-7040's) to play back
> tapes made from 1990-1998. DAT is a very, very impermanent medium.
> BTW, DAT is only 3.8mm, not 8mm.
speaking, DAT.
If I can find a good A/D system, for a reasonable price, I will most
certainly use it.
Mike Rivers
Apr 6, 2012, 9:58:35 AM4/6/12
to
On 4/5/2012 4:23 PM, Marc Wielage wrote:
> Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
> digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
Well, check again. They're building a digital archive (it'll
> Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
> digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
take another 50 years) and it's backed up and backed up and
backed up. The facility is darn safe, too. It's really quite
amazing, Next time you're in Culpepper VA you should take a
tour.
> I would say long-term archival storage is one of the biggest challenges for
> anybody that has large numbers of music, TV, or film performances.
that you really, really, care about? What would be the
effect on your life should you lose a recording or a TV
show? And do you even KNOW everything you have?
Anybody?
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these "music is
temporary" people. I have some things that I enjoy listening
to several times over a decade. But I wouldn't cry if a CD
or DAT would no longer play. Not unless it was my job to
preserve it for eternity.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 6, 2012, 10:39:39 AM4/6/12
to
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>On 4/5/2012 4:23 PM, Marc Wielage wrote:
>
>> Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
>> digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
>
>Well, check again. They're building a digital archive (it'll
>take another 50 years) and it's backed up and backed up and
>backed up. The facility is darn safe, too. It's really quite
>amazing, Next time you're in Culpepper VA you should take a
>tour.
But, they're not throwing away the originals or the safeties!
>On 4/5/2012 4:23 PM, Marc Wielage wrote:
>
>> Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
>> digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
>
>Well, check again. They're building a digital archive (it'll
>take another 50 years) and it's backed up and backed up and
>backed up. The facility is darn safe, too. It's really quite
>amazing, Next time you're in Culpepper VA you should take a
>tour.
>Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these "music is
>temporary" people. I have some things that I enjoy listening
>to several times over a decade. But I wouldn't cry if a CD
>or DAT would no longer play. Not unless it was my job to
>preserve it for eternity.
a young high schooler was this: "Never pass up an opportunity to bill the
customer for something." When a tape is unreadable, you cannot bill for it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 11:56:18 AM4/6/12
to
Marc Wielage writes:
> There's an old saying: if you don't have your data in _at least 3
> places_, you don't really own your data. That means main copy,
> backup #1, and backup #2.
It's not the number of backups, it's the reliability of each. A single backup
> There's an old saying: if you don't have your data in _at least 3
> places_, you don't really own your data. That means main copy,
> backup #1, and backup #2.
that is 100% reliable is fine. If none of the backups is 100% reliable, there
will always be the possibility of a complete loss. Adding backups that are
less than 100% reliable improves overall reliability but never makes it
certain.
> The motion picture, TV, and record businesses are struggling with the whole
> issue of how to do vast long-term digital archival storage of enormous media
> libraries. Nobody has completely figured it out yet.
doesn't mean that it must be preserved forever. As the volume of recorded
material grows, eventually those creating it will have to realize that some
things just need to be tossed after a certain time.
> The Motion Picture Academy has been releasing technical papers on THE DIGITAL
> DILEMMA, addressing concerns about how film, tape, digital files, and other
> formats are going to survive over the next 100 years or so.
society really any worse off because of the recordings that have been lost?
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 12:00:40 PM4/6/12
to
Marc Wielage writes:
> Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
> digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
A digital backup is essentially no different from an analog backup in terms of
> Last I checked, the Library of Congress still hasn't given their blessing to
> digital backups for audio. They're still using 1/4" analog 15ips.
longevity if it is using the same recording medium. The only significant
difference is that analog recordings degrade gradually and continuously from
the time they are created, whereas digial recordings do not degrade at all
until the media has deteriorated enough physically, and then they suddenly
become totally unreadable.
Either way, you lose the recordings, eventually. The advantage of digital is
that you can copy those recordings losslessly to new media before they fail,
whereas copying analog recordings always carries over the accumulated
deterioration that they've amassed.
> I would say long-term archival storage is one of the biggest challenges for
> anybody that has large numbers of music, TV, or film performances. My fear
> is that a lot of great movies, TV shows, and music is going to fall apart
> before we can get it digitally archived to something stable, lossless, and
> easily playable.
physical media that are essentially analog in nature, digital will not prevent
the losses over the long term in most cases.
It would be better to simply accept the fact that you can't preserve
everything, not even digitally.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 12:01:51 PM4/6/12
to
Mike Rivers writes:
> Some, maybe, but not anybody. How many things do you have
> that you really, really, care about? What would be the
> effect on your life should you lose a recording or a TV
> show? And do you even KNOW everything you have?
Exactly. There isn't much that I consider so important that it must be
> Some, maybe, but not anybody. How many things do you have
> that you really, really, care about? What would be the
> effect on your life should you lose a recording or a TV
> show? And do you even KNOW everything you have?
preserved intact forever. I even throw stuff away when I get tired of the
overhead required to preserve it.
Marc Wielage
Apr 6, 2012, 5:12:53 PM4/6/12
to
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:58:35 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <jlmsqc$k9i$1...@dont-email.me>):
> Well, check again. They're building a digital archive (it'll
> take another 50 years) and it's backed up and backed up and
> backed up. The facility is darn safe, too. It's really quite
> amazing, Next time you're in Culpepper VA you should take a
> tour.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Yeah, I casually know Pat Kennedy, who is their resident film scanning tech
and colorist on staff in Virginia. Pat's a great guy who does exceptional
work, and I have no doubt they're doing everything they can to hang on to
what they've got.
> Some, maybe, but not anybody. How many things do you have
> that you really, really, care about? What would be the
> effect on your life should you lose a recording or a TV
> show? And do you even KNOW everything you have?
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Even getting the important Top 10 hit TV shows of (say) the last 30 years
digitally archived is on the back burner of many studios. Almost none of the
film shows are being done at 4K, with the exception of SEINFELD and a few
others. And the videotape shows are really, really falling apart quickly.
> Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these "music is
> temporary" people. I have some things that I enjoy listening
> to several times over a decade. But I wouldn't cry if a CD
> or DAT would no longer play. Not unless it was my job to
> preserve it for eternity.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Nobody knows how many master tapes Universal lost in the studio fire three
years ago. Their official statement at the time was, "well, everything
important has already been released." But you have to wonder, what about all
the other stuff that wasn't considered important: B-sides, album tracks,
alternate takes, live performances... there's tons of stuff that isn't
necessarily "hit" material that deserves to be saved.
There are rumors that all of Bing Crosby's masters were lost, along with
Ricky Nelson and scores of others. Granted, the mastered CDs survive -- as
CDs -- but it's still sad if the analog master tapes are gone forever. And I
wouldn't consider, say, a 1984-1985 CD to sound as good as that tape could
ever sound, given the issues with A/D converters and digital recording in
that era.
--MFW
(in article <jlmsqc$k9i$1...@dont-email.me>):
> Well, check again. They're building a digital archive (it'll
> take another 50 years) and it's backed up and backed up and
> backed up. The facility is darn safe, too. It's really quite
> amazing, Next time you're in Culpepper VA you should take a
> tour.
Yeah, I casually know Pat Kennedy, who is their resident film scanning tech
and colorist on staff in Virginia. Pat's a great guy who does exceptional
work, and I have no doubt they're doing everything they can to hang on to
what they've got.
> Some, maybe, but not anybody. How many things do you have
> that you really, really, care about? What would be the
> effect on your life should you lose a recording or a TV
> show? And do you even KNOW everything you have?
Even getting the important Top 10 hit TV shows of (say) the last 30 years
digitally archived is on the back burner of many studios. Almost none of the
film shows are being done at 4K, with the exception of SEINFELD and a few
others. And the videotape shows are really, really falling apart quickly.
> Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these "music is
> temporary" people. I have some things that I enjoy listening
> to several times over a decade. But I wouldn't cry if a CD
> or DAT would no longer play. Not unless it was my job to
> preserve it for eternity.
Nobody knows how many master tapes Universal lost in the studio fire three
years ago. Their official statement at the time was, "well, everything
important has already been released." But you have to wonder, what about all
the other stuff that wasn't considered important: B-sides, album tracks,
alternate takes, live performances... there's tons of stuff that isn't
necessarily "hit" material that deserves to be saved.
There are rumors that all of Bing Crosby's masters were lost, along with
Ricky Nelson and scores of others. Granted, the mastered CDs survive -- as
CDs -- but it's still sad if the analog master tapes are gone forever. And I
wouldn't consider, say, a 1984-1985 CD to sound as good as that tape could
ever sound, given the issues with A/D converters and digital recording in
that era.
--MFW
Mike Rivers
Apr 6, 2012, 5:22:51 PM4/6/12
to
On 4/6/2012 10:39 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The one thing I learned as an intern from Mr. Fordham way back when I was
> a young high schooler was this: "Never pass up an opportunity to bill the
> customer for something." When a tape is unreadable, you cannot bill for it.
Ah, but you can bill him for backing it up, and do that
> The one thing I learned as an intern from Mr. Fordham way back when I was
> a young high schooler was this: "Never pass up an opportunity to bill the
> customer for something." When a tape is unreadable, you cannot bill for it.
about every 5-10 years as long as he's interested in
preserving it.
Mike Rivers
Apr 6, 2012, 5:25:44 PM4/6/12
to
On 4/6/2012 12:01 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> There isn't much that I consider so important that it must be
> preserved intact forever. I even throw stuff away when I get tired of the
> overhead required to preserve it.
These days, most of the stuff that I record gets deleted
> There isn't much that I consider so important that it must be
> preserved intact forever. I even throw stuff away when I get tired of the
> overhead required to preserve it.
before I even finish listening to it. Work for clients, of
course, is different, but I leave it to them to back it up
however they desire. I usually keep one copy but I don't
promise them anything. I record. I'm not an archivist.
That's not something for which I can evaluate my own work so
I don't want the responsibility.
Mike Rivers
Apr 6, 2012, 5:33:56 PM4/6/12
to
On 4/6/2012 5:12 PM, Marc Wielage wrote:
> Nobody knows how many master tapes Universal lost in the studio fire three
> years ago. Their official statement at the time was, "well, everything
> important has already been released." But you have to wonder, what about all
> the other stuff that wasn't considered important: B-sides, album tracks,
> alternate takes, live performances... there's tons of stuff that isn't
> necessarily "hit" material that deserves to be saved.
This is debatable, so let's let others debate it. I've
> Nobody knows how many master tapes Universal lost in the studio fire three
> years ago. Their official statement at the time was, "well, everything
> important has already been released." But you have to wonder, what about all
> the other stuff that wasn't considered important: B-sides, album tracks,
> alternate takes, live performances... there's tons of stuff that isn't
> necessarily "hit" material that deserves to be saved.
rarely heard a bootleg or a discovered track that I thought
was any more important than what was officially released.
Some people get paid a lot of money to decide what to
release and what to set aside. If they thought those
alternate takes were important enough to release it would
have been done. Now it's just a money maker.
I'm hearing a lot of alternate takes of bluegrass recordings
from the 1950s, mistakes and all. Some people eat that up,
but the version that was released, IMHO, was better and was
the one that the artist should have wanted his fans to hear,
not one that they didn't think was as good when they
recorded it. They're usually right.
> There are rumors that all of Bing Crosby's masters were lost, along with
> Ricky Nelson and scores of others. Granted, the mastered CDs survive -- as
> CDs -- but it's still sad if the analog master tapes are gone forever.
the CDs are probably in better condition should someone want
to do a re-issue. Where the original master tapes are worth
having, or at least hearing, is when the CD master was badly
buggered (because they thought that was better at the time).
I have reservations about remixed material. Sure, we have
better sounding mixers today, but a remix isn't what the
artist approved (unless he's still alive and has an
opportunity to do so). Sometimes they work with the artist
and you really have a new product with no recording cost.
That's always good for the bottom line, and it makes
collectors happy.
Trevor
Apr 6, 2012, 6:22:18 PM4/6/12
to
news:jlmv7b$nth$1...@panix2.panix.com...
maintenance cost. MANY companies don't even think simple storage costs can
ever be paid from possible future sales. And most of them are probably
right. It's only in the small number of cases they are wrong that people get
really annoyed.
Trevor.
> The one thing I learned as an intern from Mr. Fordham way back when I was
> a young high schooler was this: "Never pass up an opportunity to bill the
> customer for something." When a tape is unreadable, you cannot bill for
> it.
Which is ONLY worthwhile as long as you can bill them more than your
> a young high schooler was this: "Never pass up an opportunity to bill the
> customer for something." When a tape is unreadable, you cannot bill for
> it.
maintenance cost. MANY companies don't even think simple storage costs can
ever be paid from possible future sales. And most of them are probably
right. It's only in the small number of cases they are wrong that people get
really annoyed.
Trevor.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages