>>Also, in reality, is 44.1K or 48K sampling more than adequate for
>>all 78 digital restoration? Or should one double sample, e.g. at 96K,
>>for digital restoration purposes, and only at the end of restoration
>>to resample downward to 44.1K for "Red Book"?)
At the Society of American Archivists meeting this past week in LA a very
good question was asked by George Blood during one of the audio sessions.
He asked why use a 96Khz sampling rate for audio restoration? I couldn't
answer the question other than to say everybody else seems to be doing it.
George pointed out that downsampling from 96 to 44.1 for access copies or
reissue is a real chore, and that we might want to consider 88.2 as a more
logical sampling rate if we want to take advantage of the benefits of
higher sampling rate for correcting pitch or noise reduction. Downsampling
from 88.2 to 44.1 is much easier on the computer, easier on the engineer's
patience, and would provide roughly the same benefits as 96.
David Seubert, Curator
Performing Arts Collection
Davidson Library Special Collections
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
(805) 893-5444 Fax (805) 893-5749
mailto:[log in to unmask]