naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit

Subject: Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit
From: "Tim Nielsen" supernielsen
Date: Sun May 13, 2007 6:00 pm ((PDT))
ACK!!!

I'm not saying that everyone needs to be recording at 24 bit. But I  
find it troublesome when people keep saying 'ah, it doesn't really  
matter' when it so clearly DOES. Anyone using a sound devices  
recorder, and semi-professional to professional quality mics, and is  
recording mid to low range signals at 16 bits, is shooting themselves  
in the foot compared to what they could have. It's just that simple.

If you're recording using a $39 radio shack mic, knock yourself out.  
But a lot of people on this list are spending money on decent gear,  
gear that is capable of 24 bit recording, and I fear that if they  
listed to the general gist of this thread, they're going to be  
convinced that recording in 24 bits won't get them anything, when it  
will.

I just have to say one more time. Nature recordists DO deal with  
fairly small dynamic ranges most of the time. This is part of the  
problem, in that often, that entire dynamic range is also of lower  
level. How many of you recording in 16 bit employ enough gain to get  
your loudest sound near zero? I'd bet not many. And if NOT, then you  
are not recoding in 16 bits, you're recording in some number less  
than that. And as your signal is recorded at a lower level, your  
dynamic range is being reduced, and you will be able to hear it, as  
the noise floor increased into the dynamic range. This is and was the  
main impetus for introducing a 24 bit system, control of and  
preservation of a usable dynamic range.

Storage cost has become so low, that I have a hard time believing  
people are using that as an excuse. A DVD to backup your sound files  
can backup several hours of recordings for twenty cents. A 4 gig  
flash card for a 702 is now under $100 and will still record four  
hours of 24 bit 48k sound.

As was posted earlier, please do to the sound devices webpage, which  
has such a clear audio example of exactly what is being talked about,  
that it's hard for me to believe that anyone who has listened to it  
is still arguing :)




On May 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Marc Myers wrote:

> Exactly right. Most preamps and microphones are too noisy to take  
> advantage of 24 bit recording. So record at 16 bit and save space.  
> Now when you process the signal, it does not harm to up to 24 bit.  
> In fact it can help. Dithering is usually a good thing when it  
> comes to processing.



<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