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.