Subject: | 2. Re: 24 bit vs 16 bit recordings |
---|---|
From: | "Paul Jacobson" thebrunswicktwitcher |
Date: | Tue May 22, 2007 3:38 pm ((PDT)) |
I've been following the discussion with some interest despite the fact I'm likely to be recording in 16 bit for the foreseeable future. Doing a little reading beyond the list I came across a pertinent FAQ which I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion, and which might be of interest to those not already bored with the discussion: The 24-bit Field Recording FAQ http://www.24bitfaq.org/ it is somewhat dated but still interesting reading, especially the discussion of the additional low level resolution afforded by 24 bit recordings. The other thing I came across and which discusses bit depth and sampling frequencies in the context of nature recording is an article on the digitisation of the Macualay Library of Natural Sounds analog archives. http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=3D13201 cheers Paul |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | 1. Re: 24 bit vs 16 bit recordings, I propose to conclude this discussi, Gianni Pavan |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Herp Recording uploaded, geopaul7 |
Previous by Thread: | 2. Re: 24 bit vs 16 bit recordings, stoatwizard |
Next by Thread: | 2. Re: 24 bit vs 16 bit recordings, Scott Fraser |
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