Subject: | 5. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit |
---|---|
From: | "Mark R." seoulgypsy |
Date: | Wed May 16, 2007 5:50 pm ((PDT)) |
Walt 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 think making errors leads one into unconventional approaches that expand the limitations of gear, so while I agree with you on a documentation's level, there is a strong part of me that wants to experiment. Mark R. |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | 4. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Rob Danielson |
---|---|
Next by Date: | 1. XXI International Bioacoustic Congress - 2nd announcement, Gianni Pavan |
Previous by Thread: | 5. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Lou Judson |
Next by Thread: | 6. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, John Hartog |
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