naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A good solution?

Subject: Re: A good solution?
From: "Curt Olson" flipov411
Date: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:16 am ((PST))
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

I agree. 24-bit is certainly worthwhile if you have the gear. But with
careful gain staging and dithering, 16-bit can still deliver fantastic
results. By contrast, I recently purchased Sheryl Crow's 2006 CD
"Wildflower." The credits show some of the biggest-name studios and
engineers in the music business. I'm guessing at least 24/96 from end
to end, and it sounds awful. High definition? Yea right...

Curt Olson





<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