[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Archiving at double speed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
> Sent: June 23, 2006 12:26 AM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Archiving at double speed
> At 11:24 PM 6/22/2006, you wrote:
> >"Good quality" is somewhat relative. For comparisons on various
> >sample-rate converters, see here:
> >I believe the Sequoia engine is the same as Samplitude's...
> Correct me
> >Richard, if I'm wrong...
> We've had a bit of a discussion of that site on the Ampex list or
> here--I forget which--and I got better results than those shown for
> Sequoia for Samp 8 in some quick testing that I did.
RP) Once again, it's all relative. I'm sure they use the same testing
procedures for *all* systems. I know that this group has changed their
testing procedures in the past to make sure that the specific approach is as
unbiased as possible. I believe they are re-doing one of those tests now...
I agree with the rest of your statements as they contextually discuss "oral
history". The frequency response and necessity for "absolute fidelity" is
obviously less on voice (especially when the original quality is poor), than
You should always consider the source and the *use* of the material - and
other variables - when trying to make this decision.... And as you say:
today, SRC would be the last thing to worry about.