DaveiZDave wrote:RADAR records directly to a Hard Drive. This is the equivelant of a Roll of 2" Tape with the following noteable differences:

...

- Information on a Hard Drive remains intact exactly as recorded except in the event of a drive failure whereas Tape degenerates every time you play it. Slight abrasion of the oxide passing over the tape head removes particles from the polyester backing with each pass. There is no way to avoid this. Exercising the tape as it simply travels the tape path between reels stresses the physical bonding of the chemical formulation to the backing and weakens it to a point where it can eventually result in audio dropouts resulting from excessive loss of magnetic material. Repeated use of any magnetic recording tape causes the medium to degenerate first in it's ability to reproduce "highs" which results in recordings sounding duller than originally captured. This phenomenon also occurrs when tapes are stored for many years while the chemical material slowly breaks down. Further to this is the fact that there are many different tape formulations and each one will result in different audio characteristics so there is less consistency than when using a digital recording medium.


I hope you find this information helpful.

Hooey.

I find this "information" to be completely contrary to my direct experience. I have never had a reel of tape deteriorate noticeably during use, and I have been able to play, record on and make money from the release of master tapes recorded more than 20 or more years ago. I have never seen a recording lost because the multitrack tape "failed" in some way: Never. Not once. Over a thousand records under my belt, and I have never had a problem with the multitrack tape that caused a loss of a session or recording.

The only significant storage problem with analog tape is binder stickiness, which can be remedied easily and repeatedly, and doesn't entail a loss of audio.

The "problems" you describe are theoretical issues with no basis in practical reality -- like suggesting that we all walk in "giant steps," in case an earthquake should open cracks in the earth in our path. We could step over them then you see. Hello?

In contrast, I have direct experience of digital data loss ruining a recording and losing accumulated work, and I have witnessed digital formats disappear outright within the span of a couple of years, making their projects irretrievable orphans.

Look forward with me -- fifteen years even: What does one do with an obsolete hard drive full of data from an expired platform, which cannot be easily addressed by any "modern" machine?

Even today, what would I do if someone came into my studio with a 9-track tape of Soundstream data? Or a Betamax with DBX Digital audio? Or a 3M Digital master, or an X850 tape, or Prodigi or -- or -- or...

In contrast, I can play back any magnetically recorded analog audio from the last 70 years or so with minimal effort, and the recording I just made today can be pulled off the shelf in 20 years, strung-up on a machine and played with no fear or fuss.

I haven't entered into this until now because I don't want this enlightening discussion to degenerate into tit-for-tat, but you have suggested in your post that the RADAR is just like a tape machine, only better because it doesn't have a tape. Even granting your point that the RADAR sounds "better" than analog (a Chrismas Day-level generosity for the sake of argument on my part), then its principle weakness is the weakness of all digital systems: There is no master tape.

Tell the recording school crowd and other neophytes whatever you think they'll swallow, but for those of us up here at the front of the boat, the view (both fore and aft) is pretty clear: Digital formats are not permanent, digital systems (and the computers and operating systems and file formats and data storage devices and ... and... and...) are all transitory and tend to be incompatable over time, and digital storage media do not have the long-term proven reliability of analog ones.

Unless you use paper punch cards, because those should last as long as an analog master, barring termites.

Everybody says RADAR sounds great. I'm sure it does. Congratulations. You should use that as your pitch. It's probably better than Protools. Use that. You have managed to keep the platform afloat in one form or another for ten (!) years. Congratulations. In digital years (like dog years) that's almost forever.

But please don't pretend that there are archival or reliability drawbacks to the use of analog tape, or that digital storage and platform stability can be depended-on, because there are decades of evidence that make you look foolish.

best,
-steve albini

steve wrote: ...please don't pretend that there are archival or reliability drawbacks to the use of analog tape, or that digital storage and platform stability can be depended-on, because there are decades of evidence that make you look foolish. best, -steve albini

Hi Steve,

You make some very good points but I do disagree a little on your statement above. For example, CBC Radio is now using RADAR across Canada primarily recording live concerts, jazz festivals, radio shows etc. They spent the better part of a year and over $1M researching the best recording strategy to go with. Up until RADAR their main format was tape. CBC has always had a mandate to archive everything they ever record whether they need it or not. By the year 2000, CBC had accumulated over 50 years of tape archives on all formats including 2", 1", 1/4", 3324 Dash, 3348 Dash, DAT, DA88, and ADAT so they can be considered to be relatively experienced in the area of tape storage and archiving. Over the past 3 years they have spent millions re-archiving their entire tape collection by doing 16 bit 44.1 transfers to CD of all things. Why? Two reasons. 1) The tape archive was breaking down. 2) Today it's easier to recall old stuff from a CD library (assuming it's properly cataloged) than 2". The issues they were dealing with included;

1) Analog print-through - Sound from one layer transferring to adjacent layers.
2) Substrate Brittleness - Leading to tape breakage.
3) Oxide Wear - Multiple playback separated by sometimes years - Oxide breakdown over time may cause it to flake off during later playback.
4) Digital print-through - With digital tape the magnetic polarity of DATA on one layer slowly affecting the polarity of DATA on adjacent layers to cause "1's" to change to "0's". This is the WORST problem since this can cause tapes to be completely unreadable and everything is lost forever.

Disk storage is a good solution since the head never touches the media and the data is layed out flat (as opposed to a tight roll) in a way that "Digital Print-Through" is impossible. The main problem with Disk storage now is that of media. Everyone we talk to is looking for the "Magic Media" and it does not exist. Hard disks are the first things to come along in decades that have high enough capacity and speed to deal with high resolution digital recording. However, although many people today consider hard disks to be media, they really are not since they have a ton of sensitive electronics, motors, solenoids, greese and greese nipples, bearings, springs and other things. Exabyte or AIT tape is media but it's just going back to tape. What everybody keeps asking us is when is the "Magic Media" going to appear. This is what our customers have consistently asked us for in recent years:

The Magic Media is:
1) High Speed Digital Storage - meaning instant random access to any point in the media(digital tape still needs to wind back and forth)
2) High Capacity - Must hold at least 3 hours of 24 track for live recording. This works out to 150 Gigabytes at 24 bits and 192 kHz
3) Reliable: Must have at least a 30 year shelf life and must not be prone to mechanical or electrical failure(as hard disks are)
4) Cheap: Costs under $100

The Solution:
1) Ideal - Solid State, i.e. flash memory. This meets most of the criterion above except that it is too expensive. I've been following the prices and currently the cheapest you can buy 150 GB flash memory for is about $30,000 which is about 300 times too expensive.
2) Second best - Disk Only such as DVD-R or DVD-RW. This meets most of the criterion above except that the capacity seems to be stuck at 4.7 GB which is 32 times too small.

On the Horizon:
1) Blue-Ray Laser DVD - 50 GB, expected to be shipping by 2005.
2) Other?

This is a real problem in our industry. Recordists around the world are daily creating millions of Gigabytes of data and it's ending up on hard drives and digital tapes and in some cases transferred to analog tapes for archival purposes. One day people are going to be paying minimum wage students to transfer it all to the Magic Media.

tmidgett,

For most people this "exercising" of tape would not in itself be a problem. The effects of it become apparent many years later when pulling Master Tapes from the vault to reissue a classic recording and you are horrified when just as the tape starts to roll you see shedding that makes it look like your machine has suddenly turned into some sort of grinder. I don't know if you ever personally had this experience with 30 year old tapes but I certainly have. Every Major Record Company is vitally aware of this issue and looking for a better long term solution. Many other people don't think very much about this until it's dangerously late. On the other hand I've transferred older recordings (40years+) that seemed to run as good as new. There are numerous variables which Barry touched briefly on.
As you pointed out Analog signal recorded on magnetic tape is certainly more forgiving than Digital information which may become corrupted to a point of being unuseable if too much is lost due to drop outs.

Proper storage certainly helps but every physical thing breaks down over a finite period of time. This includes every type of recording and archival media in use today and those which will be developed.
Every tape will eventually decay. In recent years hundreds of priceless recordings have been saved by a process of baking tapes to enable the chemical formulation to readhere to the polyester backing.
Every Hard Drive will fail as well. As the cost of this technology spirals downward many people are tempted to use Hard Drives as media for archival purposes. These are mechanical devices. If the lubricant in the sealed bearing race congeals in 20 or 30 years of non use it may never spin again when finally powered up, therefore removeable disks such as DVD RAM or even DVD-R or CD-R is a better choice for long term storage of valuable audio tracks.

The goal always is to store the recording 100% intact. The stability of Analog recording over long periods of time is somewhat predictable but falls slightly short of the real goal at best. With storage of digital media we can retain 100% of the original content but we can not accurately predict time line. The safest method of Archiving presently known is to first have more than one identical copy and make fresh copies of each of those well within the parameters of minimum expected shelf-life. This works well for digital data but is not so great for Analog recodings due to the fact that you introduce more noise with each generation of rerecording regardless of how good your equipment is.

Nobody has the "Magic Media" yet but some care and wisdom can help you protect your valuable recordings for the longest possible time.


Cheers,

David

bhenderson wrote:Hi Steve,

You make some very good points but I do disagree a little on your statement above. For example, CBC Radio is now using RADAR across Canada primarily recording live concerts, jazz festivals, radio shows etc. They spent the better part of a year and over $1M researching the best recording strategy to go with. Up until RADAR their main format was tape. CBC has always had a mandate to archive everything they ever record whether they need it or not. By the year 2000, CBC had accumulated over 50 years of tape archives on all formats including 2", 1", 1/4", 3324 Dash, 3348 Dash, DAT, DA88, and ADAT so they can be considered to be relatively experienced in the area of tape storage and archiving. Over the past 3 years they have spent millions re-archiving their entire tape collection by doing 16 bit 44.1 transfers to CD of all things. Why? Two reasons. 1) The tape archive was breaking down. 2) Today it's easier to recall old stuff from a CD library (assuming it's properly cataloged) than 2". The issues they were dealing with included;

1) Analog print-through - Sound from one layer transferring to adjacent layers.
2) Substrate Brittleness - Leading to tape breakage.
3) Oxide Wear - Multiple playback separated by sometimes years - Oxide breakdown over time may cause it to flake off during later playback.
4) Digital print-through - With digital tape the magnetic polarity of DATA on one layer slowly affecting the polarity of DATA on adjacent layers to cause "1's" to change to "0's". This is the WORST problem since this can cause tapes to be completely unreadable and everything is lost forever.

Your analog problem number two is related to acetate substrates, which haven't been used in decades, and thin-film (cassette) media, not multitrack masters. The acetate problem mirrors the film deterioration of Hollywood libraries, and should get the attention of archivists everywhere. The solution should not be to make digital files of the tapes, but to conserve the tapes as they are and make file copies on conventional modern analog tape.

Your analog problem number three is a pure fiction, unless you're referring to sticky tape shed, which is so easily correctable even Canadians should be able to do it, or the acetate problems described in number two (which cause a delamination of oxide as well as other problems). I have never witnessed this in professional grade tapes made after 1960 or so.

Your analog problem number one does not entail a loss of audio, and since print-through happens in the first few moments of tape pack, the user would know upon first playback if it were a problem. There is a marginal increase in print-through with storage, but if it is a problem, the problem occurs immediately.

The digital formats you list are all obsolete (well, DA88 may survive in post for another year or two), most are not supported by any kind of support network, and they help prove my point: Wholesale changes in Digital recording "standards" and formats happens at such an accellerated pace (compared to analog formats) that picking one of them now is guaranteeing you will have future problems with compatability, data storage, cross-platform utility, hardware lifespan, maintenance and just about every other technical aspect of the game. I would have urged the CBC not to use any of these formats for "archival" material.

In contrast, I have excellent-sounding, reliable machines within arm's reach for all the analog formats you mention, as does just about any professional caliber studio in the world, and I'd be willing to bet my house against a donut that I can play any analog tape in the CBC's library.

A little story about the CBC:
I'm a big fan of Glenn Gould. I had been looking for vinyl of his "The Idea of North" and "The Latecomers" for a long time. I finally got them secondhand about 8 years ago. Here's how: The CBC were divesting themselves of all their vinyl after transferring each item to DAT. DAT as a format is now dead, and no new machines are being made. The CBC are now looking at re-transferring their DAT copies to something else, if they bother, and then that to something else, and that to something else... and ... and...

In the mean time, let me check... yep, those two records are still sitting there on my shelf in perfect condition. I think I'll indulge myself in a way the CBC cannot, and listen to one of them.

The CBC technical staff are clearly not the sharpest pencils in the drawer.

Disk storage is a good solution since the head never touches the media and the data is layed out flat (as opposed to a tight roll) in a way that "Digital Print-Through" is impossible. The main problem with Disk storage now is that of media. Everyone we talk to is looking for the "Magic Media" and it does not exist.

The singular of "media" is "medium."

Since such a medium doesn't exist, and everything the digital industry has come up with has gone bust and destroyed history, I'll stick with the one that's been doing the job effortlessly since before the Great War: analog magnetic tape.

best,
-steve

Hi Steve,

I am delighted to hear of your totally positive experience with old tapes.
You are truly blessed. Unfortunately for many others heartache rather than joy has occasionally been the reality. As one who has been working with analog tape since the 1960's (and I still do) I can say sincerely that I truly would be thrilled if degradation of analog masters were indeed only theoretical.

I agree completely that the many formats that have come and gone over the past 100 years have made it awkward for those who have committed their project to something that became obsolete. This makes for some very interesting challenges at times when trying to restore, repair or reissue these gems. I am still searching for a wire recorder in pristine condition for transferring some one-of-a-kind analog recordings.
Some good news is my analog cylinder players can accomodate both the standard 2-minute and 4-minute formats. Many of these original cylinder recordings have been transferred more than once to "current" formats that have since become obsolete.
I can still play 16, 45, 33 1/3, and 78 RPM records including the BBC 16" platters that play from the inside out. I powered up the now discontinued 1" 8-track last week for the first time in about 5 years. I was glad I still had one.

I totally relate to your frustration with the many digital formats that have come into existance just long enough to go obsolete. In recent years the various digital formats have created the exact same quandary previously experienced with evolving analog formats (only faster) and we should expect this phenomenon to continue until a permanent standard actually exists.
Analog tape was indeed the closest thing we ever had to a real Standard. Sadly, however most manufacturers of these fine Master Recorders have totally ceased production, and sales of Analog tape has been winding down steadily for the past 10 years.

So looking forward with you -- fifteen years even: I see many people who have put away their various Master Recordings without another thought. Many of them will be disappointed. Many others will pay attention and exercise some wisdom to do what they can in order to keep their archive relevant.

Any recording of value should be copied and stored in at least 2 different places and occasionally copied to a current archival format before the original format becomes obsolete, so it can be retrieved even if original playback equipment is no longer available.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by assuming that Analog Tapes in the Vault will always be something you can play just because you have the equipment to play them on. Tapes are not immune to the laws of nature and like everything else they will all surely decay.
Just like the paper punch cards you mentioned they will dry out significantly over 70 years and lose their tensile strength as the bonding agents break down. The paper backing on some of the earliest magnetic tapes will soon be approaching the end of life.
If you try to use these now it may still be possible so I highly recommend making a copy before another 70 years passes if you want to preserve what's on them. Have you ever picked up (or tried to pick up) a 100 year old newspaper only to have it crumble in your hands?

I have personally had good experiences in recent times with tapes that were recorded in the 40's, 50's & 60's. I am well pleased every time as I am passionate about preserving these timeless performances. I have also had dreadful experiences with shedding Masters that were recorded as recently as the 70's and even a couple that were done in the 80's.

What do you really see for the future? Will people continue to maintain an ever-diminishing number of great tape decks until they are no more?
Will these once again be manufactured to replace equipment currently being used?

Thank you for your positive comments about RADAR. It is certainly the only Digital format that I would personally consider recording on.
There has never lived a more hardcore Analog fan than yours truly, yet I now prefer many things about RADAR, not least of which is the sound.
I believe you and I share the many common interests in spite of a few different experiences. I see RADAR as a viable format that is the most likely contender to ultimately replace Tape Machines and satisfy the needs of people who understand the benefits of both platforms.


A committee comprised of the Producers & Engineers Wing of NARAS has been studying format issues for about 3 years now in an attempt to establish more consistency of delivery and archival formats and less fragmentation within the Industry we all dearly love.

You might find the information at this link interesting:

http://www.grammy.com/pe_wing/guideline ... ryRecs.pdf



Cheers,

David

I hate to involve myself into an obviously heated debate to which I was not directly invited, but I’d like to have a crack. Also, I apologize in advance for the length and any regurgitation of information.

I totally relate to your frustration with the many digital formats that have come into existance just long enough to go obsolete. In recent years the various digital formats have created the exact same quandary previously experienced with evolving analog formats (only faster) and we should expect this phenomenon to continue until a permanent standard actually exists. Analog tape was indeed the closest thing we ever had to a real Standard. Sadly, however most manufacturers of these fine Master Recorders have totally ceased production, and sales of Analog tape has been winding down steadily for the past 10 years.

What is really sad is when equipment manufacturers quote sales statistics as if they were cause for the manufacturers’ actions and not the direct consequence of them. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that many of the problems being discussed in this debate as well as on the issue of file sharing and the technological problems facing the “biz” today are generated by the profit motive of equipment sales. The most notable example in recent history, of course, was the advent of the CD as the new standard for recorded sound. Think of all those CD players that have been sold, not to mention all the lps that people have “had to” replace. Of course, now we know that the folks who made the CD were a bit short-sighted and set the bar a little low at 44.1/16. Now the major record labels (who naturally are owned by the same companies that make the equipment) are shitting bricks because of all the 12 year-olds “stealing” music from the internet and copying their friends’ CDs, subverting the intended design of the same technology that the manufacturers used to get fat on twenty years ago. Some of us on the sidelines and in the trenches don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The manufacturers’ response to all of this? They give us SACD and DVD audio (again, technologies owned by companies with competing interests), one of which they figure must emerge as the next highest eschelon on the road to perfection. Are you about to go replace your music collection again?

None of this is news. And of course it’s not the only time it’s happened in history. Other battles over media standards have been waged over the years by companies with conflicting interests, including the 45 and 33 1/3 rpm phonograph, VHS and Beta, and so many of the recording formats you’ve mentioned (I’m far from a history buff). I see a parallel between digital and solid state technology, which has become quite acceptable given 30+ years to realize its potential, but which I think was very bad for the recording industry when it was thrust into the studio in place of the antiquated vacuum tube. Maybe not everyone knows that for a short time there existed a 1” 12-track tape format which was rejected by the engineering community because it was sonically inferior (unacceptably so) to the 1” 8-track format you’ve also mentioned. Pretty simple arithmetic (even for me) and you begin to wonder why people rave over 24-track 2” when its baby brother was once considered unusable.

This brings me to my point, as I hope to give an answer to some of your questions…

So looking forward with you -- fifteen years even: I see many people who have put away their various Master Recordings without another thought. Many of them will be disappointed. Many others will pay attention and exercise some wisdom to do what they can in order to keep their archive relevant.

What do you really see for the future? Will people continue to maintain an ever-diminishing number of great tape decks until they are no more?
Will these once again be manufactured to replace equipment currently being used?

Well, you know, there’s really no such thing as a collective future, except in the sense that people identify themselves into groups and industries and can share experiences. In reality there is a future for you which is entirely separate from my own. But, for sake of discourse, I’ll go along. I believe the future for our industry is exactly what we want to make it. You speak of a recording standard as if it were a whimsical thing, always within your grasp but always slipping through your fingers. We almost had it with analog tape, you hint, but somehow those sales of tape mysteriously started declining. The anecdote of the 1” 12-track I mentioned above is a perfect example of how we, the engineering community, can guide our own future. Maybe if all those producers in the seventies (and some of the people listed in that Grammies document you’ve supplied) hadn’t been so preoccupied with other “enlightening endeavors” they might have had the presence of mind and the balls to change the trends that became standard practice in the recording studio. But then the boon of the CD era brought along a whole new opportunity to get rich off of the dumbing-down of America and a generation born into a world where 44.1/16 is “perfection” and an MP3 is a good enough substitute, especially if it’s free.

This forum stands as a perfect example, I think, of how the future of our industry can be shaped, rather than passively accepted. Imagine a legion of budding recording engineers who come to this site to learn something about recording, and leave the site having learned that some record they might like was recorded with none of the bells and whistles you’re likely to find in most of today’s equipment catalogs, and that good engineering technique with simple and even “antiquated” technology is the most important factor. Maybe this same person will decide (as have countless other producers and engineers) that analog tape is the way to go. There’s hope with every person who becomes “turned on” to these ideas. I believe there is a future for analog technology, including analog tape, and that the true champions of the recording industry today are the manufacturers and studio owners who commit their work to improving upon technology that, as you yourself admit, is the only standard that was ever really recognized. Steve Albini might be one of the more vocal of these people, but he is by no means the only one. If there is a sneer of bitterness in the tone of these “luddites,” it is likely because they know that the industry has cut it’s own throat. You agree that we were damn close to establishing a standard with analog tape (and, methinks, the vinyl record), then how can you, in good conscience, promote a product engaged in the business of destroying that standard and building a new one in its digital image, all for the sake of equipment sales. I’ve had to use the RADAR system a few times. Last time was a couple of years ago when 48k/24-bit was all the rage. It sounded decent. It also cost me (well, not me personally, but some faceless entity) valuable studio time waiting for the EXABYTE tape backup, contrary to the claims that this is a “fast” digital workstation. Studio owners probably love it with all that backup/restore time. The RADAR is a viable option in the world of digital multitrack recording, arguably the best on the block. And in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

I almost forgot.... With every intention of bursting my own bubble and fanning the flame, I'd like to suggest that the folks at Electrical mend their ties with Quantegy; my sources tell me EMTEC/BASF is no longer making analog recording tape. Confirmation from a second source would be appreciated.

DaveiZDave wrote:I am still searching for a wire recorder in pristine condition for transferring some one-of-a-kind analog recordings.

Give us a call -- there's one in the basement.

Okay, let's get the digital/analog debate over with. Here's my side:

Some good news is my analog cylinder players can accomodate both the standard 2-minute and 4-minute formats. Many of these original cylinder recordings have been transferred more than once to "current" formats that have since become obsolete.

There is an existing multi-mandrel cylinder "turntable" available through Old Colony sound labs (there was an interesting article about it in AudioExpress), if you need to play one of them. The important thing is that the cylinders (and therefore the audio recordings on them) still exist, and are retrievable with modest effort. Corrupted digital data is useless.

In recent years the various digital formats have created the exact same quandary previously experienced with evolving analog formats (only faster) and we should expect this phenomenon to continue until a permanent standard actually exists.
Analog tape was indeed the closest thing we ever had to a real Standard. Sadly, however most manufacturers of these fine Master Recorders have totally ceased production, and sales of Analog tape has been winding down steadily for the past 10 years.

I would argue that no analog format has ever truly expired. Even formats with few or no existing machines (Soundmats for example) can be played back with a little ingenuity.

Analog tape is still in production, and there is a thriving business in refurbishing and remanufacturing analog machines. The current market precludes new manufacture, but the same was true of vacuum tube equipment only a few years ago.

I contend (and haven't been wrong yet) that a true standard cannot exist for digital audio data. The reason digital systems are so flexible is that all the architecture around them is open to modification. You update your products as necessary to incorporate new features and to accommodate changes in hardware that are dictated by the greater computer industry. So it goes. If a "standard" is ever fixed, it will be discarded capriciously once the computers in use in the larger world dictate it, or once an innovation makes products uncompetitive without adaptation.

Any recording of value should be copied and stored in at least 2 different places and occasionally copied to a current archival format before the original format becomes obsolete, so it can be retrieved even if original playback equipment is no longer available.

I know of no record label or individual artist that is undergoing such a program. I know that none of our clients do this. I do not expect the habits of a diasporous clientele to change. Taking negligence as a given, it is the obligation of the studio to provide the client with the most robust, longest-lived, historically-proven format for masters. I mean that in all seriousness: not providing clients with an analog master is irresponsible, given the history of digital media.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by assuming that Analog Tapes in the Vault will always be something you can play just because you have the equipment to play them on. Tapes are not immune to the laws of nature and like everything else they will all surely decay.

I will take a 100-year life span over a 10-year one, and I will take planned permanence over whimsical obsolescence, given a choice. I have no rational choice other than to deduce from the track records of they two paradigms which is more likely to serve my clients (and history).

What do you really see for the future? Will people continue to maintain an ever-diminishing number of great tape decks until they are no more?
Will these once again be manufactured to replace equipment currently being used?

Since none of us can see the future, we are obliged to remember the past, and appreciate the present: No digital system has had anything like the longevity of analog systems. No digital format can realistically have any expectation of survival for the long term. No digital format is as universal as analog. There is no magic medium for digital storage. Analog machines are in abundance now, and easy to keep in good repair. Analog tape is still in production. Analog recording works seamlessly, and its drawbacks and weaknesses are minor, correctable and not fatal.

A committee comprised of the Producers & Engineers Wing of NARAS has been studying format issues for about 3 years now in an attempt to establish more consistency of delivery and archival formats and less fragmentation within the Industry we all dearly love.

It speaks volumes that a standardization problem has existed in the digital realm for more than 20 years, and an industry committee has been studying it for three years with no conclusion. What this implies to me is that such a standard is an unrealistic goal given the speed of change in all computer-related fields.

I have no quibble with people who choose to use digital recording for its percieved strengths. I take issue with anyone suggesting it is a suitable alternative to analog recording for long-term storage. My experiences and the history of the industry both bear this out.

best,
-steve

Everyone,

For what it's worth, I'm about to complete my Master's in Information Science [focused on audio archival practices]. I have not only had conversations with innumerable experts in the field but am also a recording engineer with extensive experience with most digital and analog media.

To all who care, I second every one of Steve's comments. In the archival field, too many neophytes are foolishly transferring their analog masters to digital (mainly CD-R) and tossing the originals. I cannot emphasize how much this digitization will come back to haunt them. The true experts, who usually care most about their collections and the artists (and aren't fooled into believing the latest hype), are dedicated to preservation by analog magnetic tape. Certainly, digital copies are made available for "use" by the public (and others) but they shouldn't be relied upon for long-term preservation. Steve knows what he's talking about.

Thanks.

Dan Maksym

One thing really needs to be cleared.

To those of you who compare RADAR to 2" analog sound:
When you speak about analog, which analog exactly do you mean?

Different analog stuff (recorders) have different sound.We can talk and like or dislike their sound but they are the choice of real recording engineers.I am not speaking about that nerds from "recording"magazines.
Now, if you are presuming that all this serious people are just overseeing need to preserve their masters, you are wrong.
I played back many masters (you can choose format) from archives that started in 40-ties and had no problem whatsoever.
Furthermore, this archive (on national radio) was contacted at the time by ALESIS representative who sold them ADATS as medium...
Nowdays they throw bricks on everyone saying: digitaaaaal!
Sorry, I forgot that digital is everchanging too...they probably mean the other digital...right!

Thing I dont like with digital is that I cant tell what's PRO and what's not.
For the price tag on PRO digital stuff, I could get a PRO analog, drug problem,blonde and a race car...

Are just everyone mad enough to guarantee digital formats will not change and are just O.K. as they are? I don't think so.
Please tell me how can company that produce digital recorders or platforms make ANY guarantee when they depend on so many third party
products such as processors, RAM, etc..fashion, wars,PC's,Mac's...

I am well aware that digital is here to stay, but believe me it's still pissing against the wind.
I have to say that I am horrified by statements of people behind RADAR and their obvious ignorance and lack of field experience.I think that their sales figures will show them this too!

Thanx for this forum, great place to see the sharks.