Ya know Walt, I'm not quite sure what prompted this attack. First of
all, I have about 10 years about 8,000 recordings under my belt, so
I'm not quite a 'newbie' at this, and I resent being called some rich
guy out there touting my list of gear. I know my technique just fine,
thank you, having experimented with most types of recording. My only,
and continued point is, IF you have the option between 24 and 16, and
you're not recording very loud material, there will be a discernible
quality difference between the two. Why does this statement bother
you so?
> 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.
This I have done. And you're wrong. Plain and simple, you're just
wrong. I have noticed a very noticeable improvement in recording
anything fairly quiet. I really truly honest to God have.
> You never record in less than 16 bits with 16 bit equipment. The
> format
> does not change just because you leave your gain low.
Sorry, but this is wrong. As your level decreases, so does your
'effective' bit depth, and therefore your dynamic range. 16 bit has a
theoretical maximum dynamic range of 96dB. If you record with a
maximum signal of -12dB, something which I still argue most nature
recordists would do quite easily (and even lower), your 'effective'
bit depth is now 14 bits, and your dynamic range is 84dB.
Here is someone else's summation of all any of us are trying to say,
on the benefits of 24 bits:
"First one can raise the level of recorded material without losing
resolution. A 16 bit recording has 96 dB of dynamic range (6dB per
bit 0r 2
to the 16th power) If a recording is recorded with 12 dB of headroom - a
possibility when recording a large amount of material of varying
volumes,
You're only using 14 bits, for a dynamic range of 84 dB. Human
hearing has a
dynamic range of approximately 98 dB so in this case the system noise
would
be raised into an area that could be heard during quiet material.
Additionally if dither is added, which is usually around - 84 dB (the 2
least significant bits), this noise will also be raised to -72 dB
which can
easily be heard, sounding a little like tape hiss. If the same
material was
recorded with 24-bit resolution which has 144 dB of dynamic range,
raising
the level by 12 dB would still put the system noise and dither below the
threshold of hearing. So in short, when recording to 16-bit media, it's
necessary to carefully optimize the volume of the recording. With 24-bit
this is not as necessary."
Read that last sentence. This is all this entire thread is about.
> 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.
OK, first of all, attacking anyone personally in that manner is
uncalled for on this list. It's uncool. I was never making this
personal against anyone, but I was trying to have a discussion citing
facts and subjective experience. I could honestly care less what you
record with. Use a friggen tin can and a wax cylinder recorder for
all I care.
But the fact is, the new $500 Fostex recorder can record 24 bit. My
$300 M-Audio Microtrax can record 24 bit. This has nothing at all to
do with 'rich' people. MOST new prosumer gear can record 24 bit, and
lots of people on this list are buying these new recorders that can
record 24 bit, and they're curious about it. And there was simply
some very serious misinformation being put forth to these people,
that 24 bit and 16 bit don't matter. And that is just WRONG.
And your 'tiny' differences, are not tiny, to anyone who has
experimented with this. Did you listen to the Sound Device examples?
I have a hard time thinking anyone would think those examples are
tiny. You really think that example is insignificant increase in
system noise in the recording?
And no, it's not technology that makes all the difference, and I
never put that idea forth. First and most important is just to get
out there and get the recording. Second, IS technique, and
understanding mics and placement, etc. But knowing all of those,
let's say I want to record the very quiet sound of a babbling brook
at 30 feet. I don't want to get right IN the stream to get a loud
usable signal, that's not what I want to record. I want to record the
whole scene, as subtle and quiet as it is. No mic, and no recorder,
is going to get me enough gain to get that signal down on a 16 bit
system as well as I can capture it on a 24 bit system. Now, they
might both be 'usable', they might both be lovely recordings, but one
IS going to be different and better, and that is the 24 bit system.
I mean, Walt, you have some of the most expensive mics possible in
your rigs. I honestly have no idea why this thread seems to have
insulted you the way it did. I mean, why did you spend all that money
on 'technology' if technology makes no difference? Of COURSE it does.
On May 14, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Walter Knapp wrote:
> 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
>
>
|