derek holzer wrote:
>
>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 different
> > 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.
Good points, Derek. Obviously processing is the key issue. Among
others that can be considered are:
(1) the probabilty that contemporary recordings may be used in the
future, when the 44.1kHz / 16 bit delivery standard may be out-moded;
(2) the additional "headroom" which exists when recording at 24 bits
(useful when signal strengths are unpredictable).
Why would one not use the best available format (bearing in mind cost
and application)?
John Campbell
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|