tragabigzanda wrote:Much of what people admire about older recordings are things like tape compression and tape hiss. The former is already present on any archived recordings, and the latter can now be removed with scary efficiency.
The inherent limitations of analog recording is a totally different and unrelated topic.
In any case, you're again placing an enormous amount of confidence in the digital technology of the day.
There will only ever be one master tape of those original Coltrane recordings.
The hiss and noise reduction techniques widely used in the 90s now seem very destructive.
Who can predict what technological changes may occur in twenty or fifty years time?
Is data necessarily any more secure in the long-term than analog tape? (It's definitely not.)
tragabigzanda wrote:Spenno's post about the quality and quantity of those archives is more concerning though. Take everything I've said and apply it to "properly archived master recordings" only.
My problem is what constitutes a "properly archived" digital transfer changes over time as new processes become available.
What seemed like good (or "good enough") archiving and transferring techniques in 2002 or 2004 are presumably very inferior to those undertaken today.