I'm about to begin transferring a large number of LPs to my
computer. I'm planning on storing them as .WAV files, so I can easily
transfer the songs later to a CD or to my iPod. Storage space is no
problem, and I don't want to use a lossy compression routine like .MP3
after I've gone to all the trouble of recording the albums and
"de-noising" them.
My question is, what sampling rate and word size should I use
for the .WAV files? My sound card can record up to 24-bit/96 kHz, but
if I take a 24/96 WAV file and burn it to a CD, will it play in a
regular CD player? Likewise, I don't know if an iPod will play a .WAV
file that's recorded at greater than 16/44.1.
If conventional CD players and personal music devices need the
..WAV files to be 16/44.1, does anyone know of a program that will
batch-convert files from higher sampling rates to 16/44.1? That way,
I could store them and play them on my computer at 24/96, but quickly
down-convert selected songs to 16/44.1 for CDs or my iPod.

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...

I'm about to begin transferring a large number of LPs to my
computer. I'm planning on storing them as .WAV files, so I can easily
transfer the songs later to a CD or to my iPod. Storage space is no
problem, and I don't want to use a lossy compression routine like .MP3
after I've gone to all the trouble of recording the albums and
"de-noising" them.

OK.

My question is, what sampling rate and word size should I use
for the .WAV files? My sound card can record up to 24-bit/96 kHz, but
if I take a 24/96 WAV file and burn it to a CD, will it play in a
regular CD player?

Most CD burning software requires that .wav files be 16/44 stereo, to burn a
regular audio CD.

Likewise, I don't know if an iPod will play a .WAV
file that's recorded at greater than 16/44.1.

Probably not.

If conventional CD players and personal music devices need the
.WAV files to be 16/44.1, does anyone know of a program that will
batch-convert files from higher sampling rates to 16/44.1?

Here's a good one named SSRC, freeware downloaded from
http://shibatch.sourceforge.net/ .

That way,
I could store them and play them on my computer at 24/96, but quickly
down-convert selected songs to 16/44.1 for CDs or my iPod.

That can work. However, there is no audible benefit to sample rates 44.1
KHz or audio samples 16 bits, for playback. LP's have about the same
amount of dynamic range as good 12 bit digital storage. There's no advantage
to playing back signals than about 16 KHz.

If you want to test these concepts with your own years, you can do so by
download and listening to files from www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:17:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

SNIP

That way,
I could store them and play them on my computer at 24/96, but quickly
down-convert selected songs to 16/44.1 for CDs or my iPod.

That can work. However, there is no audible benefit to sample rates 44.1
KHz or audio samples 16 bits, for playback. LP's have about the same
amount of dynamic range as good 12 bit digital storage. There's no advantage
to playing back signals than about 16 KHz.

If you want to test these concepts with your own years, you can do so by
download and listening to files from www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Thanks for the reply, Arny. Whether or not there's an audible
difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96, I guess I'm never going to hear
it in my case, since I'm using LPs for my source material. Maybe if I
had the original analog masters or session tapes, it would be a
different story.
Anyway, thanks again. Being able to store my songs as 16/44.1
is going to make life a lot easier when it comes time to make CDs and
load up the iPod, and after looking at your explanation, I feel
comfortable that I'm not going to lose anything audible in the
conversion.

Scott Gardner

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:17:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

SNIP

That way,
I could store them and play them on my computer at 24/96, but
quickly down-convert selected songs to 16/44.1 for CDs or my iPod.

That can work. However, there is no audible benefit to sample rates
44.1 KHz or audio samples 16 bits, for playback. LP's have about
the same amount of dynamic range as good 12 bit digital storage.
There's no advantage to playing back signals than about 16 KHz.

If you want to test these concepts with your own years, you can do
so by download and listening to files from
www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Thanks for the reply, Arny. Whether or not there's an audible
difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96, I guess I'm never going to hear
it in my case, since I'm using LPs for my source material.

Agreed.

Maybe if I
had the original analog masters or session tapes, it would be a
different story.

Been there, done that and not even then. The pcabx samples were made under
what were essentially studio conditions with high end, widely-respected
equipment including mics, mic preamps, converters, etc. Most limitations in
their use is at the user's end.

Anyway, thanks again. Being able to store my songs as 16/44.1
is going to make life a lot easier when it comes time to make CDs and
load up the iPod, and after looking at your explanation, I feel
comfortable that I'm not going to lose anything audible in the
conversion.

Glad to be of assistance. I can think of at least one justification for
maintaining 24/96 wav files, and that would be in case one hoped that future
noise reduction algorithms would be far more effective than current
technology.

Arny Krueger wrote:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable. If you check the following site, you'll find that not one of four name
servers can resolve www.pcabx.com:

http://www.infobear.com/cgi-bin/nslookup.cgi

"Jason Vigo" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable. If you check the following site, you'll find that not
one of four name servers can resolve www.pcabx.com:

http://www.infobear.com/cgi-bin/nslookup.cgi

Thanks. It appears that I'm having problems with the registration of my
site. I renewed it and the renewal appears to have failed. I didn't know it
had gone this far.

Try this:

http://64.41.69.21/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

Jason Vigo said to **** of ****s:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable.

Looks like Arnii is behind on his ISP bill again. Time to sell some
more of those "training" videos?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Jason Vigo said to **** of ****s:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable.

Looks like Arnii is behind on his ISP bill again.

I'd explain the difference between this and what actually happened, but it
would be way over your pointed little head, Middius.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:11:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable.

Looks like Arnii is behind on his ISP bill again.

I'd explain the difference between this and what actually happened, but it
would be way over your pointed little head, Middius.

Why bother? You'd only be lying again. Why didn't you pay your ISP
bill?

--
td

The Devil said:

Looks like Arnii is behind on his ISP bill again.

I'd explain the difference between this and what actually happened, but it
would be way over your pointed little head, Middius.

Why bother? You'd only be lying again. Why didn't you pay your ISP
bill?

Wait, maybe Turdy is going to tell us the "truth" -- that the
authorities forced his ISP to take down the site because of susipicion
of trafficking in kiddie porn. That would explain the hideous design,
the plethora of broken links, and the absence of navigation -- Mr.
**** buried the "download XXX" link somewhere in that pile of
cyber-garbage so that nobody would find it by accident.

That's the truth, right, Arnii?

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:hf94ov4l3q6smf2evp8a8q7e4hq90koo26@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:11:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable.

Looks like Arnii is behind on his ISP bill again.

I'd explain the difference between this and what actually happened,
but it would be way over your pointed little head, Middius.

Why bother? You'd only be lying again. Why didn't you pay your ISP
bill?

I'd explain the difference between this and what actually happened, but it
would be way over your drunk little pedophile noggin, Graham

In article ,
Jason Vigo writes:
Arny Krueger wrote:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable. If you check the following site, you'll find that not one of four name
servers can resolve www.pcabx.com:

http://www.infobear.com/cgi-bin/nslookup.cgi

I just tried Arny's link and it worked just fine.

"Langis" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

It appears that I'm having problems with the registration of my
site. I renewed it and the renewal appears to have failed. I didn't
know it had gone this far.

More likely you let it lapse...

Well dohh, in essence that's what happened. However, I started the renewal
process well in advance of its expiration last month. What happened is that
the first registration agency strung things along and then backed out
yesterday. If you check a whois listing, you'll see evidence that supports
my claim, given that the site was accessible up until yesterday or so. In
the background there's an unfortunate story of unexpected contingencies,
such as the bankruptcy of @home.com .

worksforme wrote in message
In article ,
Jason Vigo writes:
Arny Krueger wrote:

www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates .

Unreachable. If you check the following site, you'll find that not
one of four name servers can resolve www.pcabx.com:

http://www.infobear.com/cgi-bin/nslookup.cgi

This report was correct at the time it was made. The link was broken for
about a day.

I just tried Arny's link and it worked just fine.

That's because I worked out the domain registration problem last night. I
tested the URL this morning and it was still broken. The renewal process was
completed by this afternoon.

Thanks for checking, though.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:46:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

expiration

I hate it when Yank sales clerks ask me for that. My card has an
Expiry Date, thank you very much.

Sorry--just wanted to mention that for no reason at all.

--
td