vinyl versus digital redux
master tapes which in general will be stored properly for any media company of noteAre you forgetting about the Universal studio fire in 2008? Apparently, it's really hard (expensive) to properly store large amounts of media. If you're considering long term storage, as in 50+ years, vinyl discs are probably the preferred method. This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs. |
As for tape degradation, the SSS (sticky shed syndrome) was a major problem on Ampex 406/407, 456/457, scotch 226/227, and a few others.I bake tape for about 3 hours at 140-150 degrees if there's any question about age or storage (and these days there usually is). This will cause the moisture to exit the tape and it should be good for a few months. It helps to store the tape in a plastic bag with a packet or two (more if its 1/2" or 1" tape) of silica gel to absorb moisture. Its better to store the tape in the attic rather than the basement! We remastered an LP where the artist ('Spider' John Koerner) did exactly that and the tapes (recorded in the early 1970s) were immaculate- no shedding and no need for baking. it is my understanding that most of the old tapes have been digitized. Correct me if I am wrong but digital storage is certainly more robust. Once in numbers that "sleepiness" can be corrected with very modest EQ as well as doing neat stuff like getting rid of the tape hiss.Some tapes have been digitized. Many, possibly most are missing because studios sold them off or sent them to landfill. Digital storage is less robust than LP, unless the digital storage is constantly moved/backed up (which means electricity is involved for the period in which the recording is stored); if analog tape is stored properly (see above) it can last decades, but its rarely treated properly. You can't correct that 'sleepiness' with just EQ; you need a bit of expansion (as opposed to compression) and you can't do anything about the loss of detail. This is all why original LPs are usually the best 'record' (if you'll pardon the term) of an older musical event. This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs.That study was done sometime in the 1980s if memory serves. What they found was that laminated media (magnetic media and CD) had lifetimes in decades if stored properly (months or years if not) but amorphous media (LPs and the stampers that made them) could last centuries. The study did not include any kind of solid state media like thumb drives. |
Anyone got an estimate of the proportion of all masters which have yet to be captured in red book digital quality or higher? I’m guessing, now that Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal, and Spotify are competing on total digital library size, the proportion is small. If the proportion of non-digitised masters is small, then we can conclude either i) not enough people want to listen to the remaining non-digitised tapes so who cares really, or ii) there should be a crowd-funder effort to complete the capture to achieve the complete permanent preservation of all The artefacts of that extraordinary period of human artistic achievement. |
I have made quite a lot of digital recordings of LPs, but mainly for comparison purposes, when trying to compare, say, tonearms or cartridges. I can play the samples over and over without damage to the record or stylus, and it gives me a good basis for comparing the sound of two cartridges, for example. I also have a few records which I have recorded because they are not otherwise available in digital form. But for most of my several thousand LPs I just listen to the record. I have a good AD converter from RME and a great DAC (a Lumin X1) but the digital recordings never sound quite as good as playing back the originals on a turntable. |
