Subject: | 6. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit |
---|---|
From: | "John Hartog" hartogj |
Date: | Tue May 15, 2007 10:16 am ((PDT)) |
My earlier statement, "whenever you can, record in the highest bit depth your equipment is capable of" is too general. That would only make sense if the components of the recorder are fine enough to not induce noise to the point it negates benefits of the higher bit depth. Still if you are unsure, it is best to err on the side of highest potential quality. We can assume by the Sound Devices example, at least with their recorders 24 bit rather than 16 could make a significant difference. Still we haven't heard any field examples of this - or have we? And even though numbers from Raimund's recorder tests (thanks for putting that together Raimund) suggest some other recorders might be up to par =96 still the proof is in the field. So let's have some real world examples. John Hartog |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | 5. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Lou Judson |
---|---|
Next by Date: | 7. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Rob Danielson |
Previous by Thread: | 5. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Lou Judson |
Next by Thread: | 7. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Rob Danielson |
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