LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2008

ARSCLIST August 2008

Subject:

Re: Seeking recommendations for oral history digitization equipment (fwd)

From:

Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:37:23 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

On Friday, August 15, 2008 3:22 AM, Tom Fine wrote:

> No reason at all they shouldn't use Soundforge!  That's why I 
> recommend it.

In my opinion, the short list of commercial software on a PC 
should include:

Steinberg Wavelab
Adobe Audition
Sony Soundforge

They are all very competent, friendly, feature rich, reliable,
well-maintained and supported pieces of software.  You really
can't go wrong with any of these products.

We use Wavelab for a number of reasons, including its tightly 
integrated CD mastering (Sony requires separate software, and 
this adds more effort moving between two packages).  We also 
use the Cube-Tec Audiocube software which is based on Wavelab 
as its platform (it's a 64-bit version, with extra features).
Moving projects between the Audiocube and Wavelab is very easy, 
and there isn't any confusion since the menus are essentially 
the same.

Wavelab also has very good BWF metadata editing built into it.
The last time I checked Soundforge, BWF metadata was not 
supported.  BWF is an important preservation format and 
standard, and should be a consideration.

Our workflow also requires that we handle digital audio files 
larger than 2 GB.  Here again, Wavelab does a great job and
offers a variety of options.

Also, Wavelab provides lots of batch processing and other
automation - important when dealing with large projects when
efficiency becomes a bigger factor.

Wavelab was a clear choice for us based on our needs.

Adobe sends an engineer out to ARSC every year to learn more
about the needs of the preservation market and I think they
are sensitive to our market's needs.  Adobe Audition also has 
some excellent spectrum-based tools that are extremely powerful.

Everyone's circumstances are different, and someone may prefer 
one software over another for a variety of reasons.

> My experience with Audacity was that it's akin to the graphic 
> user interfaces floating around for Linux -- it's klunky and 
> primative and you're fooling yourself if you think it's in 
> the league of a real-deal, paid-professional program.

I concur with Tom on the above points.  However, Audacity can 
still do the job for someone on a shoestring budget or less.  
The digital files generated by Audacity, particularly raw 
transfers, are of the same quality as those generated by the 
commercial packages.

If only capture and no editing nor processing are needed, 
then Audacity is perfectly acceptable.

Audacity may be a bit painful to use and quirky to learn, and
support and documentation may not be as extensive as the
commercial packages.  But it works and gets the job done, just
not as efficiently or elegantly.  I've inexplicably crashed
Audacity a few times - perhaps a bug or maybe it was the
way I was using it...

Consider Audacity a form of preservation "sweat equity" when
you don't have the budget for better.

If I had truly limited dollars and had to choose between a 
better ADC or better software, I might choose the better ADC
or capture hardware first to get going, and upgrade my software 
later when I had more money.  Showing progress and results is
usually a good first step to finding more money.  Processing
and editing with better software can always be done later.

> If I were a professional trying to preserve an archive of 
> unique sound recordings, I'd scale up substantially and do 
> the job right so I didn't have to do it again and I could 
> leave a legacy of high-quality digital audio for the future.

I also concur with Tom on this point.  However, when weighing
time versus budget, sometimes you need to press forward with
the tools you have rather than risk the loss of deteriorating 
media while waiting to find more money.  There are fortunately
good tools and experts available for assessing collections and 
finding strategies to minimize these risks based on media
type and media condition.

It is also true that finding money to transfer material a 
second time using better methods is often difficult to justify
when other material that has never been transferred is waiting
to be saved.

Ideally, doing things right the first time and only once is the 
best way to proceed - and is often less costly in the long run
by avoiding the need to do work over.  Assuming you have the 
budget at all.

Outsourcing becomes increasingly attractive the smaller the 
project.  If you consider that the hardware, software, labor,
real-estate (space), equipment maintenance and training needed 
to do things right in house can easily run into six figures 
before you've even saved a single recording - outsourcing 
starts making a lot of financial sense (and not because we are 
a vendor).


Eric Jacobs

The Audio Archive, Inc.
Tel: 408.221.2128
Fax: 408.549.9867
mailto:[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0808&L=ARSCLIST&D=0&P=150450
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-40
59983
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BOHSTUOJJMZFKULW7ASB4X3I7Z2UQZCM
<urn:uuid:b95cba19-2876-4fcd-a568-bbf8c0dbca4b>
2020-09-18T21:28:51Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:CQACUS5PDQMLXIGKI5AFPVV5LEKY52G6
<urn:uuid:b3b93aa6-f2e2-441f-acfa-04bbbdb6fe69>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0808&L=ARSCLIST&D=0&P=150450
response
<urn:uuid:05192520-9b01-4fc4-8d7b-dd9796bf0215>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-123.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/