Posted by: "Raimund Specht"
> In my experience, there is still no real advantage for recording at
24 bit in the field. The SoundDevices example is not surprising to me.
If one records in 16 bit at an extremely low level of -40 dBFS, the
quantization noise will of course become audible after normalization. To
me, this it not a real-world example that applies to nature recording.
Yes, it is true that the SD preamplifiers and A/D converters can provide
a dymnanic range that exceeds 16 bits (which is indeed not the case for
all 24 bit recorders). But that large dynamic range is simply not
required in the field...
And this also ignores the rather more important question if people are
using inappropriate mic setups for what they are trying to do. It seems
to me folks are trying to push weak signals into usability. When what
they should do is use more appropriate mic choices, or better fieldcraft
to get their mic positioned better. Improve the signal from your mics
and the 24 bit advantages being cited essentially go away.
I figure leaving a recording system unattended for long periods you are
going to have to tolerate lower quality than can be obtained by attended
recording.
And I agree that coming up with examples that no experienced recordist
would do in the field as a justification is just plain silly. Are 24 bit
recordists really that incapable of learning how to do it right?
Walt
|