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

[Parker Dinkins <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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



on 9/29/04 8:06 PM US/Central, David Lewiston at david.lewiston@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

> Upon the advice of a highly-regarded "golden ear." In his opinion, if the
> very best A/D converters are used, 176.4kHz and 192kHz are audibly superior
> to the lower sampling rates. I don't have access to a broad enough selection
> of equipment to make my own judgements, so I rely on him.
>
> He has had a chance to listen to nearly all of the high-end A/D converters,
> and recommends the Pacific Microsonics box. This may not be available for my
> project, so instead I've specified the new Weiss box.

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