Raimund,
I don't want to further confuse the issue, although my concerns with 16 bit
are not so much dynamic range, but with the psycho acoustic cues that I fee=
l
are much better handled by 24 bits. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
Playing the bass for many years has sensitized my listening for these subtl=
e
movements of what I will describe as miniature versions of the original bas=
s
tone that move throughout an environment. I have yet to hear a 16 bit
recording that can capture these sounds, whereas, when listening to 24 bit =
I
most certainly can hear it.
So as it applies to a nature recording, I guess thunderstorms, surf and a
few other instances might actually benefit from starting out in 24? Please
set me straight ;^)
Respectfully,
Mark
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|