[peel] Re: Who here can relate??

[Sean Carolan]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:09:52 +0000, Martin Wheatley wrote
>  Personally my ears are old and the highest of 
> fidelity would be wasted on them (even if the original vinyl and 
> tapes were sparkling quality in the first place which they obviously 
> aren't)

I finally rationalized it this way: These records will never sound better than
they do right now when I take them out, put them on the platter and drop the
needle on them (or the analogue if you've got cassettes, 8-tracks or
reel-to-reels.)  As long as the digitized copy sounds like the original in an
A-B comparison, you've successfully done the job of preservation.  Purists
will scoff, but I wasn't ever a purist.

After I digitize them, I've hopefully arrested their deterioration [he said,
hoping the CD-Rs he's storing them on don't go unreadable at some point -
which is why it's a good idea to hold onto the vinyl.]

Interesting point: My father's reel-to-reel tapes, some recorded in 1958,
remain surprisingly listenable, even after, at best, laughably inappropriate
storage.  I was expecting flaking oxide, but no.  Though since his chosen
recording method was microphone-to-speaker, one occasionally hears
distractions like the dog barking when an unexpected visitor rings the door
buzzer - thus affording a glimpse of everyday life in a Bronx, NY apartment
almost fifty years ago.

(Of course, the earliest sound recordings are fixed on
several-thousand-year-old clay pots, whose surface grooves have been shown to
carry the vibrations of the pottery wheel on which they were made.  But you
sure can't dance to 'em.)

-Sean