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:
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.