All I have to say on this is - 'do the job right, from the beginning to the
end, and do it once'. I cannot tell you how many stupid projects I have
seen that have to be done again due to it not being done correctly from the
Good luck Joel, you have your spare time cut out for you as a freebie and
please, do NOT just preserve from 'the' get go to mp3, that would make huge
hours of your time wasted.
M :-) C
Good luck Joel
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 2/22/2013 3:44 PM, Gordon, Bruce wrote:
>> The difference between 10,000 hour-long cassettes (for example) captured
>> in 48 kHz / 16-bit files and the same cassettes captured in 48 kHz / 24-bit
>> files is 3,218.75 GB.
>> The difference in data between 10,000 hour-long cassettes captured in
>> 44.1 kHz / 24-bit files and the same cassettes captured in 48 kHz / 24-bit
>> files is 785.15625 GB. That's one hard drive's worth of difference in the
>> amount of data.
>> So do we throw away 785 GB of potentially valuable data forever (because
>> it is apparently only marginally valuable) or do we save the price of
>> storage costs that continue to drop?
> I'll go out on a limb and say that the audible difference between 44.1kHz
> sampling and 48kHz sampling is very close to zero, particularly with
> cassettes as the source. The only advantage to 48kHz is that it is the
> standard, and thus would fit into other archives digitized at that sampling
> There is a downside to 48kHz (discounting the increased cost of storage,
> which is well on the way to becoming negligible): If there is any plan to
> put the material on CDs for accessibility, 48kHz files must be
> sample-rate-converted first. Sample-rate conversion is still an impwedwxr
> science; there is a collection of tests on the web:
> The results suggest that some software and hardware do the job with a lot
> fewer artifacts than others. Some that do well include Audition (w. pre-
> and post-filtering, Samplitude and various Izotope products. The venerable
> Sadie does remarkably badly.
> Equally important: sample rate conversion (for burning CDs) takes *time*.
> When the job is 10,000 cassettes that's worth considering.