Posted by: "Tim Nielsen"
> 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.
Compared to the major source of nature recordings in scientific archives
(analog tape), 16 bit is excellent, way better. I know every member of
this group has called a analog tape or 16 bit recording excellent at
some time or the other. Did they all suddenly cease to be excellent just
because a 24 bit recorder was invented for it's owner to brag about?
24bit vs 16 bit is just like the megapixel game in digital cameras.
There are folks now who claim you can't take a digital photo without
some megapixel count (usually twice what's available). Yet quality
photographers just get on with producing excellent photography with far
less megapixels.
And vs all the rest of the sound quality problems of nature recording
24bit is really a tempest in a teapot. Get out in the wilds and record,
and see just how much 24 bit helps you. Not very much if any.
> 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.
The point that has been made is that there is very little in the way of
mics that are capable of 24 bit recording. Most don't even challenge 16
bit. That's especially true for the great many in this group that
worship cheap mics.
> 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.
You never record in less than 16 bits with 16 bit equipment. The format
does not change just because you leave your gain low.
The real point is that if you choose high quality mics you can apply the
gain necessary to fit the ambient sound into the 96 dB of 16 bit. Most
times the entire dynamic range of the site you are recording is less
than half that.
It's a red herring to talk about recording with low gain as few do so.
If you do so your problems will hardly be 24 bit vs 16 bit tiny
differences. More than likely you should be looking at your mic setup or
how you locate it vs the sounds you want to pick up. Or maybe just
improve your technique. All of which will do more good than buying a new
recorder.
And just as bad, if you push the gain up to where any of the signal goes
to 0dB, you will also ruin the quality of the recording. That's a habit
from analog tape.
> 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.
What is the archive life of a DVD? From what I see folks are using them
as archives, when we really don't know how long they will last.
Or, because the bigger the files the more time involved building a
archive, they don't bother and depend on their hard disk to never fail.
> 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 :)
Maybe we don't have the money to buy a sound devices recorder. And
certainly don't like the rich folks talking like we can't record
anything that sounds good because we have not spent money on a new recorder=
.
Or maybe we have put the tiny differences in 24 bit vs 16 bit in
perspective vs all the rest of the problems of nature recording.
If it's essential to your attitude and mental well being about
recording, that it's all technology that makes the difference, then by
all means spend the money buying a new recorder each time some new
wrinkle is added.
Walt
|