Steve Albini - just watched the vid. WTF??

[kcrusher]

This is what he says in the video:

"i don't use digital recording, but not because i'm opposed to it. i don't use digital recording because it's inappropriate for the work that i do. i do permanent recording of records that are intended to last forever. they are the history of the band that i'm working with at the moment and it is vitally important to them. i owe it to them to have that record be available to them, at very least to them and, hopefully to the rest of the world, forever. the only realistic way to do that is by recording to analog tape. "

Am I missing something here? Is he REALLY implying that 'analog is forever' and digital isn't??

Ok, I understand that digital formats change and digital media does not have as long a shelf life, but you can make perfect copies of digital media and it's impervious to magnetic fields (at least cd's and dvd's are..), but if that analog tape starts to shed or is affected by a magnetic field - it's GONE! Not to mention you can't make copies without degradation.

Comments?

[cassettefetish]

wow. did you read the other thread at ALL????

[spokes]

here's a long-ass thread from the electrical board:

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... ight=radar

it deals with this topic beginning on the 2nd page or so.

[Ronan]

This is what he says in the video:

Am I missing something here? Is he REALLY implying that 'analog is forever' and digital isn't??

Comments?

I did not hear Steve's quote, but Analog is far more safe and robust option than digital. There are a few reasons.

1) Digital formats change so quicly that in 30 years it will be really tought to find ways to retrieve the media. Imagine trying to find a removable SCSI drive in 30 years. Try finding something to get data off a 5 1/2 inch floppy today.

2) All digital formats are untested in the long run. Analog tapes from over 40 years ago can still be pulled up and sound pretty good.

3) the damage of time of analog tape is a degradation, but damage to digital media can make the content inaccesible. I believe that the library of congress still uses 1/4 inch tape as its primary archive format.

Ronan Chris Murphy
www.homerecordingbootcamp.com

[cassettefetish]

You might be surprised by what their format of choice is...

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/featur ... 16161.html

--Nick

[leigh]

wow. did you read the other thread at ALL????

Haha my thoughts exactly.

here's a long-ass thread from this very special Tape Op board:

http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=15499


leigh

[seeabove]

cassettefetish, I hope you checked the date of that NPR broadcast...

[cassettefetish]

of course. It's there for others to enjoy.

[Mr. Dipity]

1) Digital formats change so quicly that in 30 years it will be really tought to find ways to retrieve the media. Imagine trying to find a removable SCSI drive in 30 years. Try finding something to get data off a 5 1/2 inch floppy today.

2) All digital formats are untested in the long run. Analog tapes from over 40 years ago can still be pulled up and sound pretty good.

3) the damage of time of analog tape is a degradation, but damage to digital media can make the content inaccesible. I believe that the library of congress still uses 1/4 inch tape as its primary archive format.

Ronan Chris Murphy
www.homerecordingbootcamp.com

Digital isn't a storage medium, as much as a storage method. Granted, your hard drive will be dead in a couple of years, and your DVDs will be unreadable in 5. Will you still be using them at that point? No. You will have transferred everything into the next medium, whatever that is.

And what happens if the hard drive fails between now and then? I repeat: Digital is a storage method, not a medium. It allows you to cheaply make identical copies of the thing, and store them in different places. Make multiple copies of optical disks, store them at a couple of friend's houses (in return for a reciprocate action), and you have a storage method safer than tape, that doesn't degrade.

[kcrusher]

wow. did you read the other thread at ALL????

oops. no, i didn't. i broke my own rule and didn't do a search first. i was just aghast at what he was saying...

i'm reading it now...

[kcrusher]

I just finished that thread.

All I have to say is - 'whatever'. That's got to be the most useless thread I've read in a while.

The best point I saw made is - whether it's 10 years or 80 years, in 100 years they'll both be gone anyways.

Obviously if you're working with digital, you know the limits and update your archive accordingly. With analog, there will be generation loss with every copy - no matter how little, this adds up. Not only that, but the same thing goes for analog with the argument about how formats change. They are assuming that analog RTR decks are going to be around in 100 years. Well, that's not too likely - maybe someone will come up with a way to read data off a tape some other way, possibly like they do with records being read optically.

Either way - there is no such thing as 'permanence'. With digital, as long as you keep updating it to a current medium, then you should still have pristine copies. This is assuming that some other method of digital storage is invented and accepted that is incompatible with older versions, thus eventually rendering them unusable (for instance - sound designer II files will not necessarily be readable in the future..).

[spankenstein]

Not exactly related but close. Today on NPR they were talking abotu digital projection for movie theaters. A film projector costs $30k and will last 20 years. A digital costs $150k and might last 5 years but will more likly be replaced when the digital format changes.

[leigh]

This is assuming that some other method of digital storage is invented and accepted that is incompatible with older versions, thus eventually rendering them unusable (for instance - sound designer II files will not necessarily be readable in the future..).

???

The format of SDII files is well-documented, on paper, and there's no reason a (sophomore) programmer of the future wouldn't be able to write a program on whatever the current OS is to read them.

Leigh

[Mr. Dipity]

This is assuming that some other method of digital storage is invented and accepted that is incompatible with older versions, thus eventually rendering them unusable (for instance - sound designer II files will not necessarily be readable in the future..).

???

The format of SDII files is well-documented, on paper, and there's no reason a (sophomore) programmer of the future wouldn't be able to write a program on whatever the current OS is to read them.

Leigh

Yes, the days of 'no longer use that format' are gone - that's the point of digital - it's a method, a concept, a communication protocol, not a medium.

Back in the old days, yes, it was a medium, and to a certain extent it still is today. But less so every day.

[logancircle]

Yes, the days of 'no longer use that format' are gone - that's the point of digital...

Yeah, I don't know why you'd say a digital format was impossible to retrieve sound from in the future. I just got some slides from the 1950s turned into black and white negatives to make prints from and yeah it was a little pricey, but the equipment is still around so it was no problem. My dad just got the hard-drive from his Windows 95 computer transfered to a couple CD-Rs.

That's the only reason a lot of home-recordists use digital--you can FTP an entire session from coast to coast without ever using (having to pay for) a physical medium.

Besides, the only good thing about tape is the tape compression, and that you can get from Vintage Warmer. HAHAHA!

cd