Digitizing Audio Files

Bressan, F. & Canazza, S. (2013). A Systemic Approach to the Preservation of Audio Documents: Methodology and Software Tools. Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/489515 Bressan and Canazza lay out some different techniques for digitizing audio files in their article. One method is to record the audio exactly as it was at the time. Another method is to make the new recording have better sound quality so it sounds more like a live recording than a regular recording. They also point out that if the files are digitized they can be reunited with other audio content from the same collection that may have been broken up and spread out. If they are digitized and can be shared easily with other institutions, they can be added to the same collection again. They argue that media with reels of tape such as cassettes are extremely susceptible. They can deteriorate because of humidity, temperature, the construction of the tape itself, dust and dirt, and the magnetic fields. Even compact discs can be ruined by mold or dust and dirt. They claim that older methods of preservation, such as transferring these audio files to newer medium by re-recording the audio, can slow down the deterioration of the content, but it can also cause problems when transferring the content, and it will most likely have to be transferred to a new medium when that medium becomes obsolete in the future. This is a valuable asset because they give a lot of important details about how to digitize audio documents, the importance of digitizing, and the differences between the different media they take the audio documents from.

Cocciolo, A. (2014). Digitizing oral history: can you hear the difference? OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 31 (3), 125-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-03-2014-0019 According to Cocciolo, when audio documents are digitized, this is done with an analog-to-digital converter. It can be compressed to CD quality, or to archival quality, depending on the purpose and use of the files. Choosing archival quality makes the file about three times as large because it is such a higher quality. However, even though it is a higher quality, it does not sound much different to the untrained ear, so in most cases you can get away with preserving it in the CD quality because most people will not be able to tell the difference anyways. This is a good article because it has a lot of information about studies they have completed about the quality of audio files that have been digitized and other factors.

Cohen, S. (2013). Shifting Questions: New Paradigms for Oral History in a Digital World. The Oral History Review, 40 (1), 154-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ohr/oht036 In this article, Cohen argues that by digitizing oral histories and putting them on the institution’s website, they can be linked with other institutions. Then people can find similar stories or stories that are related from different institutions all over the world. This can bring new information for researchers who would otherwise have been unable to obtain this information. It can also promote collaboration between institutions because they are all trying to fit together their pieces of a larger story. This article is important because it goes into great detail the importance of preserving oral histories digitally.

High, S., Mills, J., & Zembrzycki, S. (2012). Telling Our Stories/Animating Our Past: A Status Report on Oral History and Digital Media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 37 (3), 383-403. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/1112539045/fulltextPDF /496D6C7CC5A04162PQ/1?accountid=14925 In this article, High, Mills, and Zembrzycki give examples of software for presenting digitized oral history, such as Testimony Software, Stories Matter, and Omeka, the last two being open-source software, but there are also web-based programs such as Audio-Visual Barn. These are often used for video files but can be used for audio as well. In addition to indexing the files, these programs can be used to upload the files to a website with ease. This is a valuable article because it shows what can be done with the files once they have been digitized.

Lusenet, Y. (2007). Tending the Garden or Harvesting the Fields: Digital Preservation and the UNESCO Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage. Library Trends, 56 (1), 164-182. This article is about a charter created by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to promote the importance of digitizing items of cultural importance. This charter was prompted by many people worldwide were concerned that digital objects would not be accessible to everyone. It sets up international standards and principles for choosing what items to preserve and about the attitudes toward digital preservation. They claimed that institutions should start thinking of the institution in the digital world instead of trying to make the digital world fit their institution. They argued that oral history and other audio files should be preserved because they are an important part of each country’s heritage and culture and should not be lost. This article is useful because it shows some of the issues that can be faced with when creating digital repositories and what measures can be taken to address these issues.

Paton, C. A. (1998). Preservation Re-Recording of Audio Recordings in Archives: Problems, Priorities, Technologies, and Recommendations. The American Archivist, 61 (1), 188-219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294081 In this article, Paton suggests it is wise to find out which recordings are not as important or are such poor quality that it would be futile to try to save it. This should be done because it can save money by not preserving items that do not need to be preserved. Paton also suggests that if you cannot perform this conversion yourself, you should select an audio technician to complete this task, especially one that has a background in sound recording studios, and that will be open about the procedure and adhere to the archives’ wishes on how everything is to be handled. This is useful because it talks about how to conduct the digitization while maintaining an efficient size and the scope of the collection.

Seadle, M. (1999). Preserving the spoken word: six issues in search of a digital solution. Library Hi Tech, 17 (3), 230-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004615 In this article, Seadle suggests that some files be segmented. If there is a large file that is lengthy, people may not want to listen to it because they will spend a long time trying to find the part they need. In a book or any sort of written document, one can use a table of contents or an index, or even flip through the pages to find what is needed, but this cannot be done with ease with audio. Whereas if the recordings were separated in to different parts, users could find the part they needed and they will be more likely to listen. Seadle points out that choosing the file type will be an issue to consider as well. They can be converted to .wav files or use a pulse code modulation. However, Seadle also states that there is not much of an issue of quality differences to the untrained ear. This is useful because it stresses the importance of choosing how to use the most efficient file type so that it can be easily accessed in the future.

Stevens, K. W. & Latham, B. (2009). Giving voice to the past: digitizing oral history. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 25 (3), 212- 220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650750910982593 In this article, Stevens and Latham claim that oral history adds a personal touch to research because oral history give a voice to the past that you can’t get out of books. Hearing the emotion and intonation in the voice of the person being interviewed is a valuable resource because it makes the information seem more genuine. They claim that these oral histories add distinctive pieces of information to local history because they are unique and you cannot find them everywhere. This is useful because it shows the importance of oral history and why it should be preserved.

Swain, E. D. (2003). Oral History in the Archives: Its Documentary Role in the Twenty First Century. The American Archivist, 66 (1), 139-158. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40294221 Swain starts her article by exploring the history of oral history, including how librarians in the 1950s would use oral history to support more official biographical information. Swain also claims that it is a lot easier to find what one is looking for if it is in one database. She gives the National Gallery of the Spoken word from Michigan State University as a good example of accessibility. Swain also argues that these files will be more accessible when they are digitized because then the user does not have to try to hunt down a device to listen to the item because it will be available on a computer. This can be a problem as new technologies are invented and older technologies stop production. This is a useful article because it goes into a lot of detail of the history of oral history, and talks about how it is a good idea to create databases and network for greater accessibility.

Tebeau, M. (2013). Listening to the City: Oral History and Place in the Digital Era. The Oral History Review, 40 (1), 25-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ohr/oht037 Tebeau argues for the importance of spoken word oral histories. He brings up the point that these digital audio files can be accessed anytime, anywhere, even from a cell phone. He gives an example of being able to listen to an oral history of being in a certain place while you are standing in that place, and how surreal that can be. This is useful because it makes a great case for the importance of digitizing files for accessibility.