Hi Vicki,
vicki powys wrote:
> If the recording is going to be downsized to CD quality 44 kHz/16 bit, is
> there an advantage in field recording at the higher kHz and bit rates? =
Yes, if you are going to do any EQing, mixing, compression, limiting,
noise reduction, mastering or any other kind of digital processing on
the material. Then you would want as many samples and bits as possible
to retain the highest fidelity.
> Can you hear any difference on a CD, of recordings made originally at dif=
ferent
> kHz/bit rates?
If no post-processing happens, then theoretically there would actually
be more added noise from dithering from a higher bit resolution and/or
resampling from a higher sampling rate if the recordings cames from a
24/96 source. But since most sounds go into the recorder at
less-than-optimal volume, most recordings get EQed or at least
normalized anyway, and having a lower digital noise floor always helps,
even when the final "target" is CD quality.
On the other hand, unless you are using very high quality mics, preamps
and analog-to-digital converters in your gear, the noise of the
equipment you use will probably be greater than the digital noise floor
of 16/44. So it's debatable whether a 24/96 recording from a noisy rig
will give you more noticeable digital headroom to play with or not.
Second opinions welcome here.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 177:
"What is the reality of the situation?"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|