naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 16 Bit & 24 Bit recordings

Subject: Re: 16 Bit & 24 Bit recordings
From: "Raimund Specht" animalsounds
Date: Fri May 25, 2007 1:04 pm ((PDT))
Danny, can you provide an example for such a "much richer sounding" 24
bit recrding in contrast to 16 bit?

As an electrical engineer with plenty experience in designing digital
signal processing systems, I must admit that I cannot understand why
there should be such a big difference at least for recording the soft
sounds of nature.

It is my impression that this kind of audiopile tech talk is nothing
else than unproven speculation or wishful thinking that is of course
suppported by the marketing propaganda of the gear manufacturers...

Raimund

Danny Meltzer wrote:

> I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> 24 bit is much richer sounding than 16 bit.
>
> 96khz is only a bit more defined than 48khz.
>
> Of course...IMHO.
>
> Danny
>
> --- In  Scott Fraser
> <scott_fraser@> wrote:
> >
> > <<Sorry if this adding to the confusion but no one has
> > mentioned 96kHz sampling rate?
> > Would this make 'more' of a difference than 24 bits
> > would perhaps to any recording?>>
> >
> > In my experience, & that of the golden-eared producers I often work =

> > with, the difference between 16 & 24 bit is hugely more discernible =

> > than the difference between 44.1k & any higher sampling rates.
> >
> > Scott Fraser
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

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