Print

Print


Sampling rate and analog source are two different issues. I think if  
you've got the space for the 96/24, why not do it? I would.

Best,


Alyssa.
***
"Irrigators lead water, fletchers bend arrows, the carpenter bends wood  
and the wise tame the self."

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/ 
angulimala_sutta.htm

On 20-Feb-06, at 1:58 AM, Geeta Jatania wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> Can you explain why it wouldn't be worth digitising cassette to 96/24?  
>  We
> have some music tracks on cassette that we are currently capturing at  
> this
> sample rate.
>
> Anyway, transferring them now using the best available cassette
> machines makes sense. I would suggest either 44.1/16 or 48/16 is more
> than adequate. I'm doing a project now that may grow where we're
> doing 44.1/16 transfers to live on a file system and then doing MP3s
> at 64 kb/s for access of oral histories.
>
> Regards
> Geeta Jatania
> Preservation Officer - Audio
> Preservation Services
> National Archives of Australia
> Locked Bag 4
> CHESTER HILL, NSW 2162
> 02 9645 0145
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, 19 February 2006 5:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cassette obsolescence
>