LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2004

ARSCLIST January 2004

Subject:

Re: [78-l] justification of 24/ 96 for any phonographic recordings & how to store & distribute them

From:

Jon Noring <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jon Noring <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:27:23 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

[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.]


Art Shifrin wrote to 78-L:

> With the exception of electronic music & other natural sounds, one of the
> significant differences between noise and content is the shape of the
> waveform of a given sample of sound.& noise.  24 / 96 provides much more
> accurate reproduction of those noises.  The more precise the distinctions
> that can be made between noise and program, then the better job of
> "lossless" ( 'minimally lossfull' is a better, non-jingoistic term) noise
> reduction could be done.  This principle is analogous to working from analog
> tape transfers of noise originals: the NOISE is more accurately produced at
> 30 than at 15, 15 than at 7.5, etc.Once I upgraded to 24 / 96, I immediately
> heard (and saw with oscilloscopic tests) improvement  in the NR functions of
> Sound Forge.  I now deliver all jobs to clients as raw 24 / 96 files wave ,
> AIFF, etc) in addition to the processed  & watered down versions that they
> require, such as Redbook, et. al. Given that many original disks and
> cylinders will continue to deteriorate (even when stored under theoretically
> optimal conditions) doing this theoretically would enable even BETTER noise
> reduction in the future, when even better software that we have now would
> hopefully be available

Thanks for your feedback. I "knew" that it is better to do raw
transfers at 96K/24-bit, even if by Nyquist frequency considerations
it appears to be major overkill for older recordings. My thinking is
that doing transfers at that sampling rate and depth gives plenty of
"overhead" for the digital restoration step which employs algorithms
that will mathematically work better at that very high resolution.

(Of course, at the end of the digital restoration, resampling to
44.1K/16-bit, Red Book specs, can be done as needed, with no real loss
in sound quality.)


> A one hour 24 / 96 monaural wave file is about 1 gig.  Therefore at least 4
> hours of extremely pure digital information can be stashed on a DVD-OR.

My current thinking is that in the field, the raw transfers done at
96K/24-bit would be stored on pc harddrives (as WAV or similar lossless
format). Up to a terabyte (on 3-300 gig IDE hard-drives) can easily be
stored this way. At a later time, the sound files can be backed up to
DVD and/or other archival media such as MO (redundantly of course.)

Now, to answer another obvious question, let me state that the
potential partner for Project Gramophone has assured me that SPACE IS
NO PROBLEM. If we generate 1 *petabyte* (which is 1000 terabytes or
1,000,000 gigabytes) of sound files (which we'd have to work hard for
*years* to accumulate), they will store them on their server. (They
are presently designing a "portable" 1 petabyte storage system which
is almost dirt cheap in capital and operating costs to run. These
people are at the cutting edge of Internet server storage technology.
And year-by-year storage capabilities continue to outstrip our ability
to fill it.)

So space is *no problem*. That is, folks, don't worry about space or
file sizes. Anyone who brings this up again as an issue will be shot
at dawn. <laugh/>

(Now, transporting a 100 meg raw transfer WAV file over the Internet
for someone to digitally restore -- that's more of an issue. However,
with broadband that can be done in minutes to an hour, which is not an
issue. The files can also be burned to cheap CD-ROMs (as datafiles and
not as audio tracks) and sent by snailmail. Thus, I'm comfortable with
this as well, so let's put all this to rest and focus on the remaining
unknowns.)


> Given the dramatically decreased costs of AD / DA converters & storage, I
> consider it to be short sighted to digitize & store preservation masters,
> raw transfers, etc. at any less resolution.

Definitely!


> A 60 or even 90 minute radio program taken from disks & digitized to 24 / 96
> is now simply and easily stored on one disk, EVEN if the two outputs of a
> stereo cartridge are kept discrete for the monaural grooves.  The same
> advantage obviously applies to long duration, short form recordings such as
> complete operas, concerti & symphonies.

Again, with 300 gig IDE drives going for less than $200, storage of a
hundred hours of two-channel music at 96K/24-bit resolution is no
longer an issue.

Jon Noring
Project Gramophone

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager