Re: [ARSCLIST] Is recording to Reel-to-reel still the preferred preservation method?

[Paul Tombleson <pr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So does this Dan Lavry's white paper also apply to MP3 as well?
Does this also mean that cutting from a say Wav file (at 48kHz) to say
192kHz is a waste of space and maybe accuracy? And that cutting at 96kHz
would do just fine.

I found that study very interesting BTW. Thank you Parker for pointing it
out.
Regards
Paul Tombleson


----- Original Message -----
From: "Parker Dinkins" <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Is recording to Reel-to-reel still the preferred
preservation method?


> At least one study has shown that using a sample rate above 96kHz provides
> no benefit when used with well designed filtering, and in fact using 192
kHz
> results in reduced accuracy as well as unnecessary additional expense,
both
> in storage and equipment requirements. See Dan Lavry's white paper on this
> topic at
>
> http://lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
>
> ---
> Parker Dinkins
> MasterDigital Corporation
> CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
> http://masterdigital.com
>
>
>