Mark,
I could imagine that the 24 bit recording format can really lead to an
audible improvement while recording musical instruments. I guess that
the microphone is usually placed very close to the instrument.
Therefore, there can be quite high sound pressure levels at the
microphone position. At the same time, the microphone also captures
the much softer echoes from the environment. So, it could be that
those soft echoes are indeed masked by the noise floor of the 16 bit
recording system.
Yes, I also agree that 24 bits would also be appropriate for nature
recordings in which one wants to capture both very soft and very loud
sound events such as thunderstorms.
Regards,
Raimund
>
> 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 feel
> 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 subtle
> movements of what I will describe as miniature versions of the
original bass
> 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
|