naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A good solution?

Subject: Re: A good solution?
From: "macmang4125" macmang4125
Date: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:10 am ((PST))
--- In  Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> DAN DUGAN:
> >  > It may not be possible to convert all 24 bits, but a channel with a
> >>  20-21 bit depth can be 27 dB quieter than a 16-bit channel, and
> >>  therefore "24 bit" encoding is worthwhile.
>
> WALT:
> >Of course this assumes you can find a site with such a wide dynamic
> >range. When theory meets practicality, "24 bit" is probably overkill. A
> >number on a spec chart is a lot different than the real sites we
record.
> >
> >One also has to have mics that are up to such a wide range too.
>
> Right! There's hardly anything short of a space shuttle launch that
> can't be captured within 16 bits of dynamic range, if you set the
> level right. Classical music was done pretty well back when
> converters could only do 14 bits!
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
Indeed many modern day 'domestic' CD players have trouble resolving
all 16 bits. What with frequency jitter and noise present in the
circuits the last few bits can be lost.

Phil





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU