At 7:24 AM +0000 5/15/07, Raimund Specht wrote:
>But that would probably open another can of worms, which could
>further damage a few more illusions on the latest developments in
>audio technology. So, I should better shut up
>for now ;-)
>
>Raimund
Hi Raimund--
I see more consistency than disagreement.
I believe there is pretty strong consensus that audible quality
differences between fully saturated 16 and 24 bit sound files are
minimal. It seems to me that your discussions of 8 bit recording and
mp3 encoding are examples of the advantages of of robust file
saturation as well.
There are recordists on the list, a good percentage of whom record in
sparser, northern environments who routinely bring home much
"thinner" recordings with more air and ambience than recordings made
nearer the tropics. More and more of these recordists have been
observing the reduced noise advantage of recording quiet locations at
24 bits and experiencing more efficient filtering and other digital
processing in post. The Sound Devices comparison appears to provide
strong evidence in support of the first of these observations. As
yet, I've not read a challenge to the low saturation observation that
takes SD's 16 bit and 24 bit -40dB examples into consideration, so
there's a good chance we have consensus on this point as well. :-)
Rob D.
|