 |
 |
At 11:20 AM 2/13/2006, Language Laboratories and Archives (Barbara Need) wrote: >I agree with Marie. Many spoken word recordings have the potential >for phonetic analysis--whether that was the original intention for >the recording or not. Get the best digital signal you can (though, >frankly, in my experience, more than 24-bit, 48 kHz is a waste of >space), which means doing it in real time. > >At 9:31 -0600 13/2/06, Marie O'Connell wrote: >>I work with spoken word/oral histories all the time, and it is my >>recommendation that to make a digitized preservation copy/master, that it is >>done in real-time. I work with both reel-to-reel and cassettes, with speeds >>ranging from 15/16ths to 15ips. While in general I agree with what my friend Marie O'Connell has said, I would like to suggest that if we're using Barbara Need's criteria of anything over 24 bit 48 ks/s as a waste for spoken word recordings (and for a variety of record-chain technical reasons I agree with her), I would like to point out that if all the engineering "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed, we can achieve the same result at 2x using 96 ks/s digitizing and at 4x using 192 ks/s digitizing. But there are issues with recorder reproduce bandwidth, equalization, and head gap pole spacing. These can theoretically be dealt with -- and have been in the dying art of high-speed analog tape duplication, but not in (m)any products that might become available for this purpose. Cheers, Richard Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] Vignettes Media web: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/ Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm