"grand money" should be GRANT money ...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording_78rpm_records
> Hi Richard:
>
> NARAS recommends at least 88.2kHz here:
> http://www.grammy.org/files/pages/DeliveryRecommendations.pdf
>
> Excerpt:
> ----------------------------
> The Secondary Masters (Backups/”Safeties”) should have sampling rates and precisions equal to or
> better than the “Original Master” (88.2, 96, 176.4, 192, 352.8, and 384 kHz are recommended, as
> are 24 or greater bit depths). These same sampling rates and precisions are required for A/D
> conversion. Also, there should be no level adjustments, truncation, dither or noise-shaping, or
> modification of the digital signal. Please note: it is not advisable to “upsample” the Primary
> Master in order to create a Secondary Master.
> ----------------------------
>
> Two different institutional clients of mine, working with grand money, have specified 96K as a
> requirement of the grant. I think if it's audio-only transfers and the material will be used in CD
> format for on-site listening, copies sold or given to patrons/clients, etc, a sampling rate of
> 88.2 would be my preference, and I will now cite the NARAS document to back up my case that 88.2
> is just as good as 96, depending on your purposes (I understand about 96k being preferable where a
> 48k user or distribution copy would be involved, such as a video-content DVD.
>
> I totally agree with your previously-stated ideas about not needing high sampling rates for
> low-bandwidth audio such as oral histories, and I would say that in those cases the Academy
> recommendations are overkill. But, some grant-donors insist on these recommendations and net-net
> it doesn't bother me in an age of really cheap per-gig hard drives. 15 years ago, it might have
> gotten me worked up.
>
> As for the idea that 192kHz is somehow inferior to 96k, that sounds like audiophoolery or outdated
> ideas based on older hardware. I would say it's unecessary overkill to sample at that high a rate,
> for the reasons you stated, but the playback results shouldn't sound inferior to 96k unless
> something is being done wrong by the equipment or the user.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording_78rpm_records
>
>
>> Hello, Dale,
>>
>> IASA TC04 Ver 2 says the archival standard is 48/24 but higher rates may be beneficial for many
>> program types.
>>
>> http://www.iasa-web.org/tc04/key-digital-principles
>>
>> While 192 ks/s is available in some release formats, those made from analogue tape probably will
>> not benefit from the additional bandwidth between 96 ks/s and 192 ks/s. 192 ks/s captures a large
>> portion of bandwidth where the analogue tape performance is undefined, but isn't broad enough to
>> capture the bias even if it were available at the signal output terminal of the tape machine,
>> which it generally is not (partially by intent, and partially by accident).
>>
>> I had a client ask me to do a transfer at 192/24 and I asked him to confirm. He called two other
>> list members that he knew and they both said 96/24 was fine. I was glad to get the independent
>> confirmation. I know there are some comments that 192 is inferior to 96...can anyone point me to
>> an article that states that and explains it?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> On 2012-04-11 2:06 PM, D. Allen wrote:
>>> isn't the aes-ebu archival standard 96/24?
>>> by release format, are you including the 192-96/24 releases available or just cd?
>>> Lavry has product with 192/24 now.
>>>
>>> Dale Francis
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>
>
|
