On the issue of compression, you're going to get various opinions.
Some people will tell you that they'd never record compressed. Others
swear by the HHB Minidisc, that the compression doesn't have much of
an effect. I fall somewhere in the middle.
I personally 'record uncompressed when you can', and record
compressed when necessary. I used to record a bit of stuff on
Minidisc, mainly because my minidisc rig was tiny, and I could easily
take it on a walk.
But if possible, I'll always record uncompressed. Storage is now so
cheap, that it's not really an issue. CD's and DVD's are burned for
pennies to back up original recording, and there are now small
uncompressed portable recorders, like the M-Audio 2496, the Roland
R1, etc. I don't see much need to record compressed any longer, if
you don't want to.
24 bit versus 16 bit, there IS a difference. You'll mainly hear it
recording 'low level' signals, which nature recordists often do. And
again, since storage price isn't so much of an issue any more, I'd
always record in 24 bit, even if you're going to down convert it to
16 bit. You can always master it in 24, and then convert for 16 to
make CD's, etc. If you're using a 16 bit recorder, it's important to
get a good healthy level. 16 bit really suffers when recording low
levels.
The other question becomes 44.1 versus 48, or even 96. Again, my
tendency is to record in the highest quality that is practical,
knowing it's fairly easy to make an MP3 out of it. But you can't
really go the other way.
On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:02 AM, geopaul7 wrote:
> I am about to invest in some new gear (and am giving thought to
> protocols) and have the following questions regarding recording
> natural sound -- particularly birds, herps and insects:
>
> 1. Compression. What are group members' thoughts about the degree to
> which compressing originally native WAV files into MP3 forrmat
> affects sound quality? Can you hear the difference on playback?
> What kind of listening system is necessary to hear the difference?
> Good headphones? Fancy speakers? How would you describe the
> difference in words -- and what is the scientific basis for the
> purported psycho/accoustical difference?
>
> 2. 16 bit v. 24 bit. Do you really gain anything by recording at 24
> bits, as compared to 16 bits, as far as listening goes? How would
> you describe the difference in playback in words? Again, what is the
> scientific basis for the purported psycho/accoustical difference?
>
> 3. Compression of 16 bit v. compression of 24 bit. Will you get a
> better MP3 file from a 24 bit recording than from a 16 bit
> recording? Or does the fact that you compress the file eliminate any
> improvement in sound quality? This is a tough one. This seems
> quite relevant if 99% of your audience is listening to MP3s.
>
> I apologize if all this is already well known to everyone in this
> Discussion Group. Sorry to waste time. Perhaps there are a few along
> with me that don't already know these answers. Many thanks. I enjoy
> reading these posts.
>
> Geo Paul
>
>
>
|