Subject: | As far as I know you can only make MP3s from 16 bit audio. Always |
---|
dither 24 to 16 and save as a new files before compression. I'm more of a professional audio engineer than a nature recordist, so others may have more practical suggestions... <L> Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio 415-883-2689 On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:02 AM, geopaul7 wrote: > 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. |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | I always record to 24 bit if the is ANY processing at all to be done, Unknown |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Question re MP 3 compression; Kherz; and Digital Recording Basic, Rob Danielson |
Previous by Thread: | I always record to 24 bit if the is ANY processing at all to be done, Unknown |
Next by Thread: | Re: mp3 standard, Walter Knapp |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
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