>I kicked and squirmed when CDs came out with a 44.1 kHz sampling >rate, that rate is too low by an order of magnitude. Only by using a >professional grade DAC with its own timing reference and upsampling >to 192 kHz can you get close to what it's supposed to sound like.
If you are going to take that position then you would not be digitizing from anything less than the original master recording. So as I said before: is this being done for a personal music collection or for the Smithsonian? Most of us have ears that are somewhat damaged and they will only be getting worse as time goes by. So for a personal music collection it would be silly to use any technology that is better than what one can hear. ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
