Brandon Burke

....and this is to say nothing for the Art Pepper on Intro (also seen above). My vote--not a jazz record--is Billy Nicholls Would You Believe on Immediate. Psychedelic British invasion record backed by the Small Faces. 1968. Amazing LP. One of my all-time faves. For whatever reason, Immediate pressed a couple dozen promo copies (with artwork) but scrapped a formal release of the record. Last one I saw on eBay was at $2,500 and the reserve was not yet met. Yikes!

Dig it. We had/have a copy at the Wright Archive.......

So does MOTU Digital Performer. Can't speak for the others. As for stand alone units, I completely agree. You can't do any EQ tweaking or editing but they do come in handy if you're comfortable with the incoming feed.

I forgot to mention this: Saving a Pro Tools file as an AIFF is a breeze. You simply choose [save as] from the [File] pull-down menu and there you go. Within [save as] you have the option of saving your session as a WAV, AIFF.....whatever. You have this same option when you start a new session (on the same pop-up screen where you choose your bit depth, sampling rate, etc).

Are you doing this at home or at work, Stefan? I ask because I'm simply relaying standards that circulate within archival circles. One chooses to err on the conservative side in these situations.

I completely agree, though the cover is still on my wall due to the fact that my all-time favorite BN cover girl is on the front....

First of all, burning to disc and bouncing to disk are two different things. Bouncing fundmentaly changes the kind of file that you have and changes it into something that a burning software application would recognize. The burning process itself can be done at faster rates (2x, 4x, 8x, etc.) though the faster you go the more you set yourself up for signal loss. This doesn't really matter if you're ripping something onto CD-R for your buddy or for the car but if plan on broadcasting it I might think twice about accelerate burning rates. Secondly, the bouncing process absolutely has to be realtime. There's no way around it. Similarly, when you capture sound--your initial capture from analog to digital--you can't do it at aa faster rate either. I mean it's just impossible. As for a program that allows for this with two CD players, you can do this if you've already bounced them to disk. The fact remians, however, that you'll still need to bounce them to disk. Your only option, if you want to copy readable/useable files on the fly like that is to buy a stand-alone CD burner; the kind that looks like any other stereo system unit. These things create CDs that are immedyately available for use on CD players. They have to capture whatever they're recording in realtime still (duh) but, once you've got it down then you can use it w/o dealing with Pro Tools etc. And there's no bouncing process to speak of. Many of these units (like the one I have) come equipped with two trays so you can do accelerated burning without tying up your computer. As for Peak: I'm still learning. Same with jam. We just got it in yesterday. I brought it home to copy it off here but haven't had the change to really goof around with it yet.

Wait, didn't I see you do that to the Curtis Fuller LP you just sold? No, that was my Curtis Fuller Vol. 3 collecters plate.

Y'know Jim, they've got a handful of 45s as well. Stuff that's not on the record. And they're equally as good.

The tentet is playing here in a couple of weeks.

This same trio played Austin a while back and it was fantastic.

Yea, I've noticed this as well.

I was trying to say that when one produces a preservation or access copy of a document, he is determining the way that future researchers/students/etc will hear it and, as such, the way it will be 'remembered' (in the canonical sense). This is a potential risk as the engineer has the ability to--in a sense--alter history. I'm speaking here, of course, about one-of-a-kind recordings.

You're not alone.

I purchased Steely Dan's Gaucho on CD in 1985. It was my first CD purchase. It still looks and plays the same in 2004 as it did in 1985. Yes, nearly 20 years. However, an Ella songbook CD I purchased in the late 1980s is now clear. You can see straight through the clear plastic. There is no remaining digital code to produce sound or tracking on the CD. I keep it just because it's strange... but I'd rather have the sound back on the CD. Interesting. I'm not familiar with the metal layer of a CD disappearing outright. I'll have to ask around. (That'll give me something fun to do at work tomorrow.) Do you mean to say that nothing but the ink has survived?

Most of them do. Either way, it's 'known' problem in preservation circles and recognized as such by organizations like the Library of Congress and ARSC. Also, I'm not talking about (then) new copies of True Stories by the Talking Heads. I mean earlier CDs that were primarily used to house non-music data.

There is no way to accurately predict the lifespan of such new media without the use of accelerated aging, which is highly problematic. All that it really tells you is what happens to an object when you put in the environment you subjected it to in order to simulate "real" aging. The first generation of pre-recorded CDs are now suffering from a condition called "bronzing". This is due to the degradation of the metal layer. Most modern CDs (not CD-Rs) are thought to last anywhere from 10-50 years. I'm leaning toward 30-40. CD-Rs are manufactured in a different way. Also, if I remember right (my documentation is at the office), it takes a slightly different type of metal to melt at the temperature of the lasers used in CD burners. As such, it's a metal with more *give*. I've heard that CD-Rs last between 10-50 years as well but I'm thinking it's on the shorter side of that spectrum. There are CD-Rs made with a gold layer--this is discussed elsewhere on the board--because gold is almost completely inert and will show signs of degradation at a much slower rate. It is thought that they will last 100 years and they are the standard in music/sound archives when documents are digitized. Keep your LPs. Vinyl and shellac--kept in a sound archival environment (40-70 F, 30-50% RH)--will last a very long time. They are the two most structurably stable environments upon which audio documents have been housed.

Yes. I'm very aware of the ethical issues surrounding digitization. This would include audio documents other than works of art as well. A "cleaned up" interview might no longer contain crucial evidence if the ambient background sounds have been removed. I do as little "cleaning" as possible, unless of course, the client wants those sounds de-emphasized. In such cases, I also provide them with a copy of the raw capture.

Right. We'll be doing less music digitization and more, say, oral history interviews. I hear you though with regards to music. I'm very anti-noise reduction when it comes to music.

Agreed. Save your money unless you're archiving rare materials. You'll definately want to stick to a slower burning rate. Unless I'm in a big hurry I choose the slowest available on whatever workstation I'm on (home, the lab, etc). Just today, I burned something in realtime (1x). It makes a difference. Faster rates invite signal loss. Also, avoid burning more than, say, 60-65 minutes onto a CD-R. Your signal will begin to decrease in quality if you don't. I don't care what the suggested size limit is on the label (74 min, 80 min, etc). Keep it short.

How will this affect the labels they distribute (like Rounder), I wonder......

Our department just got the Waves Restoration noise reduction bundle in today and I'm going to install it if I have time today. Curious as to whether anyone on the board has experience with these plug-ins (i.e. things *not* to do that they don't warn you about, cool stuff it will do that they don't tell you about, interesting quirks, etc). Thanks in advance, B.

Yes, this story is true but I can't speak to Jim Rome's point as simply hearing his voice sends me clawing at the walls. Can't stand him. This is confirmed every time I decide to check his show out for sh*ts and grins (as I do with every political or societal viewpoint that I disagree with). This way, when I do decide to go off on a certain personality I know what I'm talking about. In fact, I'm calling bullsh*t on Jim Rome right now: * First of all, he's clearly a spoiled brat from day one. When I hear his voice in my head I hear him saying, "Fine dad, I just won't get a car at all then!" * Secondly, he repeats everything he says about five times in a row. He'd actually have time to get to the poor saps who wait 45 minutes to talk on the air if he'd stop going, "Brilliant.......I mean that's absolutely brilliant......your son is only eight years old and in little league......it's not the World Cup........it's not even the MLS......it's little league........your son is in little league......and this guy taking it as seriously as the World Cup.....it's not the World Cup.........it's little league....I mean that's just brilliant.........absolutely brilliant......I mean this guy is.....[ad nauseum]." Gimme break man. * Oh...and how about how poorly he treats his listeners. They get belittled to the point of being called "clones" and yet they come back for more as though Jim is someone worth setting aside hours of time to impress. It's sad realy. * And lastly, hasn't anyone noticed that his show is nothing more than a sports version of Celebrity Justice? He doesn't even talk about the games themselves (i.e. strategy, stats, etc). He talks about the morons who get in trouble. It's all very disheartening. Where's Joe Morgan when you need him? Alright.....I fell better now.

Anyone interested in revisiting the golden era of baseball card graphic design should hunt down a copy of Topps Baseball Cards: The Complete Picture Collection (1951-1985). I tried to find a pic online but couldn't. It's been OOP for some time now so, understandbaly, retailers don't have pics. Anyways, it's a very nice 14.25 x 11.75" hardcover volume with thick, glossy pages and thumbnails of every damned card they pressed from 1951-1985. I was especially taken by some of their more psychedelic offerings: 1974 Dave Kingman, anyone? More to the point, the forward was by your boy Willie. Rather like the Horace Silver forward in the first Blue Note book. EDIT: Here's that '74 Kingman. Not a very clean pic but you get the idea.

Toldja.....