I'd like to know what is in the various archives of people on this list that can't be
audibly-perfect transferred at either 96/24 or 192/24 PCM? I'd argue if you can find any measurable
audio difference, there is something wrong in your digital conversion or PCM system, not in the
format. There may be a slight argument that "something even better" is needed for commercial music
recordings -- and only a very few of them are truly high fidelity. But for what I would guess is the
vast, vast majority of what those of us on this list deal with, regular standard well-developed PCM
should be the cat's whiskers.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ross" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New 1-bit recorders, was Re: SACD et al. sales figures
> At 7/8/2007 03:31 PM, Doug Pomeroy wrote:
>>Well, SACD may yet have a life as a high-resolution capture format.
>>Korg (yes, Virginia, Korg!) has just announced their new, very portable
>>1-bit recorders: the MR-1 which records at 2.8 MHz ("260 minutes
>>in stereo"), and the M-1000 which records at 5.6 MHz ("520 minutes").
>>Prices are roughly $700 and $1200, respectively. This is quite remarkable.
>>Archival transfers anyone?
> Let's hope not. The Korg or any other system that uses a proprietary file format is a poor choice
> for long-term archival transfers and storage. All of the standards and best practices documents
> recommend linear PCM over the various 1 bit alternatives for long-term preservation. More
> importantly, any archival format must be based on commonly-accepted standard that do not depend
> upon a single supplier's technology.
> Quoting IASA TC-04: "non-standard formats, resolutions and versions may not include
> preservation pathways that will enable long term access and future format migration." At this
> point, the Korg uses a non-standard format as its only native storage option.
> The Library of Congress has published an analysis on the sustainability of digital formats at
> http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/ Here are a few critical questions from this document:
> Are the inner workings of the format disclosed publicly?
> Has the format been widely adopted?
> Is it transparent and open to analysis with basic tools?
> Are there a range of tools available?
> Can it facilitate self-documenting objects?
> Does it depend on particular hardware or software or a limited number of manufacturers?
> Is it protected by a patent?
> At this point in time the Korg format fails in all of these areas.
> None of this is to argue that the Korg system does not produce very high-quality recordings. It
> definitely does that. But for archival transfers, the best quality possible is still the wrong
> choice if it depends on a single vendor and a proprietary format.
> John Ross