Re: [ARSCLIST] Cassette obsolescence - digitizing standards

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> At 01:58 AM 2/20/2006, Geeta Jatania wrote:
> >Can you explain why it wouldn't be worth digitising cassette to 96/24?
We
> >have some music tracks on cassette that we are currently capturing at
this
> >sample rate.
>
> Let's look at it one way: Philips and Sony managed to convince most
> of us that the CD sounded better than cassettes or vinyl
<snip>
1) Figure that 99% of commercial recordings are at best medium quality,
regardless of format. Pre-recorded cassettes lack both sound quality
and durability compared to even standard cassettes from respectable
brands...and many CD's are engineered toward the younger demographic
as per sound quality (if only because that is what most of their
staff are used to...

2) Particularly if you are approaching middle age (a target I already
overshot) it is unlikely your ears could detect frequencies in the
20KHz range even if they were properly sampled! It would be interesting
to run blind comparisons of the various formats and see if anyone
could correctly identify them...

3) However, I do have some privately-taped (without regard for highest
quality) cassettes that contain otherwise irreplaceable content, so I
will eventually be digitizing them. I tend toward the 16/44.1, or
"CD quality" conversion, if only because that creates discs that can
be played in everyday "CD players."

Steven C. Barr