[ARSCLIST] How well to archive (was Re: [ARSCLIST] Sound card recommendations)

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

steven c wrote:

> Well, it seems logical to me that the quality of the preservation of a
> sound recording is effectively determined by its content! Thus, there
> is no reason to preserve stereo versions of mono originals, or to use
> more bandwidth than was recorded originally (i.e. preservations of
> acoustic 78's flat to 20KHz). As well, if the recording is "spoken
> word," the frequency range could be limited without loss of
> information and/or intelligibility. This also covers the question
> of "higher quality for material deemed more...important"...keep in
> mind that a preservation can never be anymore accurate than was
> the original recording (unless computer algorithms become much
> more powerful!)

Your argument is logical to me and I assume to many others, but it flies 
in the face of the sorts of standards many promote in this group. 
Indeed, I would join the argument that for archival purposes, one should 
use substantially higher capture than the limitations of the source 
implies - so long as use of resources is irrelevant.

It appears to me that there is a single standard for archival 
digitizing: 2x96x24. There seems to be no invocation of a lesser 
standard for, say, routine 78s or tapes of AM broadcast at 1x22.05x16. 
Of course, that would also suggest a judgement call: what is routine, 
what demands higher quality.

Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/