At 10:27 AM 1/5/2004 -0700, Jon Noring wrote:
>[I'm cc'ing this to ARSCList and Project Gramophone. Art's 78-L reply
>is a response to the question of why Project Gramophone should do raw
>transfers at 96K/24-bit rather than the "ordinary" 44.1K/16-bit.]
For what it's worth, here is the opinion of one concerned more with
practical solutions than with ideal ones.
To me, the question of format depends on the purpose of the project.
Oversimplifying, the issue is the audience: those concerned with the most
accurate reproduction or those concerned with accessibility. Scholars and
those looking to reissue recordings will want the highest quality
available; indeed, many may need access to the original (analogue)
material. The larger audience wants an easily accessed recording of
moderate fidelity, for example to compare two interpretations of the same
work. The 'pros' will gripe at only having 96/24, where the amateurs will
be pleased with 32 kbps MP3. Trying to serve both sets of masters with one
schema seems doomed to failure.
Incidentally, for those pros it is not clear that the advantage of 96 Ksps
over 88.2 is worth the impracticality of the sample rate. Most uses of the
high-quality file will ultimately go to CD-DA and ten percent additional
noise retention is unlikely to be worth resampling. However, as a non-pro
user, I am ill-qualified to judge on that.
[log in to unmask]