Large scale DAT-to-file ingest: circumstances, choices, workflows. As presented on IASA/AMIA 2010, Loews Hotel, Philadelphia on November 4th 2010.

1. Large scale DAT-to-file ingest
Brecht Declercq (VRT) – IASA/AMIA Conference 2010 (Phildalphia, USA)
Circumstances, choices, workflows

2. History and heritage value of DAT
Lots of e.g. radio-broadcast archives hold huge
collections of DAT
- 1986 -> ca. 2005: e.g. witness-recordings, legal deposit for
radio programmes, concert recordings in situ, …
- high recording quality and easy to use
- but: demagnetisation, signal loss, obsolescence and
scarcity of devices
=> young supports, huge threats: strategy needed

3. DAT-collection @

4. DAT-collection @ VRT-archives
- Mass usage 1991 – 2006. Reasons for stopping:
- Sony stopped production of devices
- Sound deterrioration problems
- File-based alternatives (CMS / MAM)
- Concerts and radio-programmes (x60’!): # 45k, 70k h
- ca. # 12k / 14k h music
- ca. # 33k / 56k h radio programmes
- ca. # 10,5k with digital basic descriptive metadata
- ca. # 48k with handwritten name & broadcast date
- Real figures about sound deterrioration: 0

5. Quest for a workflow

6. Quest for a workflow
- Internal or external ingest?
=> staff & machines available: internal
- Selection and prioritisation? most threatened -> first ingested
=> long-running programme + collection risk assessment
- Knowledge of duration / standard duration?
=> Digitisation staff unloads, saves & reloads every 1 or 2
hours
- Sound quality check: human or machine?
- Workflow software-tool? pro’s & cons
- Annotation: basic or intensive (real time listening)?
=> intensive annotation = must
=> human sound quality check while annotating

7. Content
Management
System
Central descriptive
metadata database
(process start)
workflow scheme @ VRT
DAT
storage
room
digitisation
room
(temporary digital storage)
Central descriptive
metadata database
(process end)
http://ardome.dmf.be/ardome/detailview=/op=info/id=1210090304748267621
QUICK QUALITY CHECK
Selection list
SELECTION
ANNOTATION &
QUALITY CHECK BY LISTENING
STORAGE
SOUND
QUALITY
REPORT
EVENTUAL RETRY
WITH ANOTHER DEVICE

8. Lessons learnt

9. Lessons learnt
Starting a DAT-ingest project: which choices, which variable
factors, which arguments?
- method of ingest: real time / streaming, internal / external?
- method of selection / prioritisation?
- method of monitoring and sound quality check:
- human while monitoring?
- human while annotating?
- automated error check?
- method of annotation: basic / intensive?
Circumstances influence choices,
choices influence workflows!

10. Circumstances – choices - workflows
1. Availability & size to method of ingest
Staff available?
Machines available?
Size of collection?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Investment worthwile? (e.g. DDS, cf. Bathgate 2009)
External dig. Internal dig.
Mixed forms

11. Yes
No
Circumstances – choices - workflows
2. Knowledge to method of selection / prioritisation
Knowledge
of sound
degradation
DAT
brand,
record date
device
brand,
record dates
Assessment of
collection & devices
can be helpful
Determining
ingest
priorities

12. continuous
monitoring
less useful
Knowledge
of
duration /
standard
duration
No
Yes
continuous
monitoring
useful
Circumstances - choices - workflows
3. Knowledge to method of monitoring and sound quality check
human sound
quality
check while
monitoring
possible
human sound
quality
check while
annotating
automated
sound
quality check

13. risk of degradation
in meantime
Non
listening
method
Circumstances - choices - workflows
4. Method of annotation to method of sound quality check
immediate intensive
annotation
basic annotation
Sound quality
check while
annotating
possible
Sound quality check
while annotating
not possible
annotation
postponed
automated annotation
Listening
method
Auto-
mated
sound
quality
check
human
sound
quality
check
while
monitoring

14. Thank you
for your kind attention!
brecht.declercq@vrt.be