Re: [ARSCLIST] The Hope of Audacity...

[Parker Dinkins <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 8/18/08 9:03 PM US/Central, Tom Fine wrote:

> George, do you think the problems you documented come about from editing
> program - hardware driver interaction or is it more often than not purely
> editing software simply mangling data?

It's not about the equipment per se, it's about having proper knowledge  -
and the ability to to distinguish proper knowledge from the mere possession
of equipment.

The discussions about the relative merits of Adobe Audition, Audacity, Bias
Peak, Cool Edit, Cubase, Goldwave, Peak, Pyramix, SADiE, Samplitude, Sonic,
Soundforge, WaveLab, etc. are only variations on the Mac vs. PC discussions
which have gridlocked other lists and forums.

To understand audio preservation, an institution should first decide where
it wants to go, and then find out how to get there - either on its own or
via a consultant. 

One way to get there is to study the Grammy Foundation methodology found
here:

http://www.grammy.com/PDFs/GRAMMY_Foundation/Methodology_2009_Final.pdf

which is based in part of the IASA TC-04 document (albeit a typo infested
treatise).

I submit that if an institution doesn't have knowledge based on recognized,
published standards, then it may have a problem using other people's money
(OPM) for its own informal agenda.

-- 
Parker Dinkins
CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
http://masterdigital.com