Date:         Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:28:06 -0700
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Archiving CLV versus CAV transfer
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <09d101c53eed$103c84a0$6601a8c0@thetick>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 04:20 PM 4/11/2005 -0700, Eric Jacobs wrote:

>If cost and disk space were not an issue, one could store both the raw CAV
>transfer, as well as the CAV-to-CLV converted transfer.  But if cost and
>space are an issue, which transfer would you preserve?

Please excuse my ignorance here - I've worked with similar situations but
not in an archival context.

The cost would appear to be essentially the same regardless of whether both
are stored since the only additional operation required is to preserve the
intermediate step. Space would be a problem if you intended to preserve the
raw CAV in audio form, which as you indicate is essentially without value.
Thus, the choice is whether to preserve a set of data - the radii and other
characteristics as determined for processing and the raw WAV (or
equivalent) file in some condensed form. Thus, my suggestion would be to
preserve a text file on the parameters and a reasonable version of the raw
CLV capture. That would be in addition to the CAV resulting from the
processing, which would logically be in a form such as CD-DA or high-rate,
two-channel WAV (or equivalent).

If only one copy can be retained, clearly it would have to be the CAV. The
CLV without supporting information would not even allow review for
relevance; with the supporting data, it would still require costly processing.


Mike
--
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mrichter.com/