|
I thought George B-N's comments on 24 bit,
which is primarily to increase signal to noise- in other words, level were
interesting, considering we are trying to save so much with a dynamic range in
the 25-45 db range.
This whole thread comes out of a response from
Harvard's engineer who seems to have infinite $$. Many of the
respondents are answering at the same financial level. It's pretty
impractical for most, but supports my point, posted to the AV and Sound-L
listserves about using 44.1 and 16 bit for oldies.
The only advantage to using the higher number
88.2, divisible by 2, not 96K which either leaves more fractions when brought
down to 44.1 or rules out using the cheap compact disc recorder at all, is that
the processing occurs with fewer fractional numbers before coming back down to
44.1.
The matter of test standards against another, known
source is tempting but may be digital storage space and studio time overkill,
especially for lower fidelity stuff. Perhaps recording a test for each
batch would make it more practical.
With all the hundreds of small operations with the
dire need to preserve older folk and other audio recordings, I
think what we're looking for is "the greatest good for the greatest number,"
rather than "the greatest great for the few using the highest
numbers."
Speaking of which, I've been buying white-surface
CD media at about $ .40. There are deals all over the web. The
strange part is the jewel boxes are up to $ .25 or .30 with shipping-
they're heavy and experience breakage in transit, and the insert cards.
The cost of the package is up to and will sureley soon exceed that of
even the better media.
Steve Smolian
-----
|