"Raimund Specht" wrote
>>
>> > 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...
At 1:07 PM -0400 5/16/07, Walter Knapp wrote:
>
>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.
The examples of low saturation I've described in this string are very
realistic.
I very much enjoy monitoring recordings and have spent many nights
doing so. Currently, I favor the practice of setting up my rig in
remote areas 3-4 hours before dusk and retiring from the scene until
the next morning. Compared to staying on location, this tends to
enable more events and ones closer to the mics/rig. Rob D.
>Are 24 bit recordists really that incapable of learning how to do it right=
?
>
>Walt
>
|