Bob, why would that be so about DSP software working better at 48 and 96 than 88.2kHz? Not doubting 
your results or ears, just curious about why???

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Olhsson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Recording_78rpm_records

I can't recommend 96k highly enough. CD is on its death bed and we're talking about the future uses 
of preserved audio. Virtually every application for digital audio other than CD is 48k. I've also 
found a fair amount of DSP software that actually sounds better at both 48 and 96 than at 88.2 and 
have never heard any that sounded better at 88.2 than 48.

Sample rate conversions from 96 to 44.1 require double precision while conversion from 88.2 only 
requires single-precision. Double precision was exotic a decade ago but is absolutely standard 
operating procedure with any software one might seriously want to employ today.


Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

-----Original Message-----
From Tom Fine:
> 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.