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 2010

ARSCLIST January 2010

Subject:

Re: DAT Ripping

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:49:31 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (66 lines)

Hi Richard:

Good luck on questioning 96/24. It's part of the NARAS/Grammy recommendation and it's what most 
public-funds grants seem to require, in my experience. What I tell the client is, it doesn't matter 
on my end, all my DAW's are now fast enough that processing is quick in 96/24. For the client, it's 
just larger hard drives to keep backed up and migrated. That's their migrane ;). Seriously, it 
shouldn't amount to any more effort given the mass-availability of huge and cheap hard drives.

In theory, of course, I agree with you about 96/24 being unable to "get any better quality" out of 
bad-sounding field recordings. But when did audio engineers ever advocate anything except 
overkill??? ;)

I'll move out of the transfer business when I'm asked to upgrade my transfer chain to 192/32-bit for 
old home recordings!

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT Ripping


> At 04:05 PM 2010-01-21, Corey Bailey wrote:
>
>>There is mention of producing "Preservation Masters". From what fie format? Are we suggesting 
>>batch converting to achieve preservation master files? Batch converting can possibly open yet 
>>another can of worms and will only produce a 16 bit fie.
>>
>>If one is to use this medium for preservation master archival, then I would suggest digitizing in 
>>real time from the analog output of your best D/A converter capturing a 24/96 Wav file.
>
> Hi, Corey,
>
> if the original DAT is 44.1 or 48 ks/s and 16 bits, why would you make a preservation master at 
> anything faster or deeper than this?
>
> I am one of the few voices seriously questioning making 24/96 WAV files from analog cassettes of 
> oral history.
>
> If you have a digital file, I think that it should be archived in its original sample rate and bit 
> depth. I think the IASA TC-04 book concurs, but I didn't look it up.
>
> Making a digital recording of the analog output of a DAT player imprints the preservation master 
> with the sonic signature of the playback DAT's D-A converter. It is not the same as the original 
> digital file.
>
> There is no reason to store bits that weren't saved in the first place.
>
> As to AIFF and WAV, they are the same PCM data in different wrappers, no?
>
> My software of choice, Samplitude, will read or save in either format. I don't think you're 
> interpolating or doing any form of conversion to the data (except perhaps re-ordering it), but 
> rather just rewriting headers and other metadata during this conversion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager